Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
7 min of reading 
0 comments 
Hudson Institute Analysis Details How Washington Sees the Advance of BRICS, Warns of Risks to Dollar Centrality and Describes Measures to Preserve U.S. Financial Power
The Hudson Institute, one of the most influential think tanks in U.S. public policy, published a detailed analysis of how the country should respond to the advance of BRICS.
The study argues that the bloc, previously limited to an informal articulation among large emerging markets, has become a direct threat to American financial supremacy.
It also points to strategic pathways to preserve dollar centrality and prevent the group from consolidating a parallel economic order.
-
Brazil tightens the grip on billionaires with assets over US$ 100 million, targeting billionaires, business owners, and heirs who currently pay proportionally less tax than most of the population.
-
Petrobras puts R$ 5 billion on the table to bring to life a colossal factory that has been idle for almost 10 years to end dependence on international fertilizers.
-
The BYD case on the dirty list evolves rapidly, secretary is dismissed after contested inclusion, court suspends registration, and tension with tax auditors intensifies behind the scenes.
-
Brazil and Indonesia are making progress on a proposal that could connect the two countries through tourism, open new travel routes, and create the impression that visiting this new axis could become easier.
The following article presents, in journalistic language, the full content of this analysis from the Hudson Institute, without additions, interpretations, or external data.
The Initial Warning and the Origin of BRICS
In July 2025, President Donald Trump told his cabinet that BRICS was created to harm the United States and devalue the dollar.
This statement expresses the growing concern in Washington in the face of the rapid expansion and international articulation of the bloc.
According to the Hudson Institute, the creation of BRICS did not happen randomly. The institute highlights that the bloc is the result of a historical accumulation of feelings since the Cold War and post-colonial struggles.
According to the material, the Non-Aligned Movement, launched in Belgrade in 1961, institutionally affirmed the desire of newly independent countries to escape the binary choice between the United States and the Soviet Union. The study differentiates two types of neutrality.
Neutrality in favor prioritized sovereignty and freedom of action, with examples such as India’s Jawaharlal Nehru and Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito.
Neutrality against, on the other hand, represented an indirect opposition to the United States, although some governments in the 1970s claimed non-alignment while depending on Soviet support.
These trends spanned the debt crises of the 1980s, the Soviet collapse in 1991, and the unipolar moment of the 1990s.
In the early 2000s, according to the institute, China revitalized this movement by presenting itself as a defender of the developing world, expanding ties with Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and promoting multipolarity as an alternative to Western financial dominance.
Motivations of BRICS Members
The Hudson Institute explains that Russia, Brazil, and India interpret BRICS in different ways. Russia, marked by the turbulence of the 1990s, adopted the bloc as a structure of resistance, positioning itself within the tradition of neutrality against the United States.
After the sanctions imposed by Washington in 2014 and 2022, Moscow began to use BRICS as a space to challenge the U.S.-led financial order.
The institute highlights that the creation of the New Development Bank in 2014, the expansion of bilateral swap agreements, and the attempt to promote trade in yuan are part of this strategy.
Brazil, in turn, adopts flexibility. Its diplomacy seeks influence without breaking with Washington or Brussels.
India, however, maintains a strong emphasis on autonomy, a legacy of its role in the Non-Aligned Movement. However, its rivalry with China limits its willingness to accept structures that expand Beijing’s power, although New Delhi invests in the BRICS structure.
The Hudson Institute assesses that the bloc’s financial agenda transforms old feelings of non-alignment into a concrete threat to U.S. interests.
Even recognizing that BRICS lacks cohesion to completely replace the dollar, the institute warns that the bloc could undermine the legitimacy of the U.S.-led monetary order.
The Centrality of the Dollar and the Threat of BRICS
The study states that the global economic power of the United States rests on two main pillars: the centrality of the dollar and the dominance of the SWIFT network.
The Hudson Institute explains that SWIFT provides visibility of global financial flows and allows Washington to impose sanctions, combat money laundering, and disrupt funding for illicit activities.
The material compares the current system to the old hawala structure, an informal method of transferring value that operates without centralized records.
According to the institute, BRICS seeks to create financial channels resistant to external oversight, similar to hawala, but with official coordination among major economies.
The Hudson Institute emphasizes that initiatives such as the New Development Bank, China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, and the expansion of currency swaps represent a transition from marginal alternatives to formal institutions. This shifts the challenge to the dollar from the periphery to the center of global finance.
The study recalls that Washington’s ability to restrict access to SWIFT was demonstrated in sanctions against Iran in 2012 and Russia in 2022. Therefore, hostile states seek alternatives that preserve their financial sovereignty.
The text notes that, after 2014, Russia created the SPFS, inspired by SWIFT, but its acceptance was limited because few countries were willing to hold rubles.
Possible Alternatives to the Dollar Within BRICS
The Hudson Institute details the options that the bloc discusses to reduce the relevance of the American currency.
Alternative National Currencies
China aims to increase international trade in yuan, using swap agreements and the CIPS. After sanctions on Russian trade, bilateral transactions in yuan and rubles grew.
India experiments with trade based on rupees. However, the institute notes that the yuan represents only a small fraction of global transactions and faces obstacles such as capital controls and convertibility restrictions.
Barter and Compensation Agreements
India and Russia already use barter and direct transactions between rupees and rubles. Iran has relied on these structures for years to compensate for the lack of hard currency. The institute emphasizes that these systems serve as emergency solutions but are difficult to scale.
Digital Currencies
The most disruptive scenario, according to the Hudson Institute, would include systems based on cryptocurrencies. The text mentions that stablecoins function as a parallel banking system in sanctioned countries. While they expand the digital reach of the dollar, they present oversight gaps.
BRICS discusses options to eliminate this dependency, and China has already implemented digital yuan. However, internal disagreements, Chinese restrictions, and cryptocurrency volatility hinder a joint advancement. The BRICS Pay project is still in its initial phase.
The Second Front of BRICS: The Gulf
The Hudson Institute dedicates a significant portion of the analysis to the strategic role of the Gulf in the monetary dispute. The study asserts that the bloc views the region as a crucial battleground to undermine dollar dominance.
China leads the effort by pressuring oil producers to accept settlements in yuan, expanding Huawei’s role in telecommunications infrastructure, and encouraging Gulf sovereign funds to invest in yuan-denominated platforms and technologies like blockchain.
Russia and Iran also seek to erode regional dependence on the dollar, using transactions in rubles, Iranian rials, gold, barter, and cryptocurrency networks.
The institute highlights that these systems demonstrate to Gulf partners that trade can survive outside the dollar’s orbit, even under strong pressure from the United States.
The Entry of the United Arab Emirates and the Advance on Saudi Arabia
For the Hudson Institute, the United Arab Emirates’ accession to BRICS in 2023 represents a significant legitimacy factor for the bloc. The document emphasizes that this accession does not break the partnership with Washington but reflects the calculation that the benefits of BRICS come at a low cost.
Saudi Arabia, although it has not yet formally joined, already participates in summits, discusses oil sales in yuan, and establishes investment frameworks with China. According to the study, these moves make it more difficult for the United States to argue that the bloc is marginal or hostile.
The institute warns that if Washington does not respond effectively, the Gulf may become a laboratory for BRICS-sponsored financial alternatives.
Hudson Institute Recommendations for the United States
The final part of the material presents the strategic recommendations of the think tank.
Prohibit Dual Participation
The Hudson Institute suggests that any financial institution operating in systems created to bypass SWIFT lose access to SWIFT transactions and dollar transactions. For the institute, the calculation would be simple: losing the American system is greater damage than entering parallel networks.
Strengthen Oversight of Stablecoins
The institute points out that while some stablecoins reinforce the dollar by being backed by the currency, others can be used to circumvent sanctions. The study highlights the role of the GENIUS Act, signed by Trump, but states that additional measures will be necessary as technology evolves.
Ongoing Diplomatic and Economic Pressure
The Hudson Institute recommends that Washington make clear to countries interested in joining BRICS the costs of integrating a project designed to weaken the United States. To do this, Americans must offer real alternatives, such as investments and infrastructure assistance.
Conclusion of the Hudson Institute
The think tank concludes that the dollar is one of the most important strategic assets of the United States. Preserving the currency’s centrality ensures global oversight, the ability to impose rules, and diplomatic power in disputes among major powers.
The Hudson Institute states that BRICS threatens this hegemony by creating opaque channels of trade and finance. To prevent the advance of this parallel order, Washington must defend SWIFT, regulate stablecoins, exert diplomatic pressure, and reinforce the legitimacy of American financial oversight. Without this, BRICS will continue to present itself as a defender of multipolarity and neutral non-alignment, expanding its international appeal.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!