Viewing Trump’s Threat to the BRICS Through the Lens of Humane vs. Hegemonic Power
U.S. President Donald Trump recently announced on Truth Social that “Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy”. This declaration sparked a strong rebuttal from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who firmly responded, “The world has changed. We don't want an emperor. We are sovereign countries.” Lula’s words highlight a fundamental issue in international politics: Can hegemonic pressure truly achieve long-term strategic goals?
The BRICS nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and new members like Indonesia and Iran - represent 49% of the world’s population and 39% of global GDP. As a collective force, their influence is undeniable. Their recent joint statement diverged sharply from U.S. positions, voicing “serious concerns” about tariffs, condemning soaring military expenditures, and criticizing airstrikes on Iran. While the statement did not explicitly name the United States, it made clear their opposition to American hegemony. BRICS is now actively pursuing economic strategies such as cross-border payment systems to enhance autonomy, directly clashing with the Trump administration’s efforts to maintain U.S. dollar dominance.
Stan Shih, founder of Acer, once used the contrast between “humane rule” (王道) and“tyrannical rule”(霸道) to describe different leadership philosophies. He emphasized that humane rule is rooted in co-creating value and prioritizing altruism, aiming for sustainability over short-term gains. In contrast, tyrannical rule seeks quick wins through coercion, lacking the foundation and resilience for long-term development. This framework applies just as well to international governance: reliance on threats and economic pressure may provoke resistance rather than stability. If Trump continues to pressure the BRICS with a heavy hand, he risks deepening divisions and accelerating global de-dollarization, undermining the U.S.’s influence in international finance. While such a strategy may yield short-term intimidation, the long-term consequences could backfire economically and diplomatically. As the dollar becomes a source of uncertainty, more nations may fast-track their own local currency settlement systems, weakening the dollar’s global dominance.
Even more concerning is Trump’s vague definition of “anti-American policies,” which could cast any critique of the U.S. or challenge to the dollar’s supremacy as a hostile act. This kind of hardline stance creates anxiety among global stakeholders and prompts businesses to adopt cautious strategies, restructure supply chains, and rethink long-term planning—potentially destabilizing the global economy. If Trump’s administration truly wants to sustain American strength, it must shift from hegemonic tactics to humane diplomacy—based on fairness, cooperation, and mutual benefit. Specifically, the U.S. should engage in dialogue, build cooperative frameworks, and work with BRICS countries on shared interests such as trade, climate, and development—rather than using tariffs as a blunt instrument of pressure. Such an approach would help de-escalate global tensions and preserve the dollar’s central role in the global financial system.
In conclusion, hegemonic power may offer the illusion of strength in the short term, but it struggles to win lasting support. Humane leadership, though requiring patience and careful cultivation, builds sustainability and cohesion. If the Trump administration fails to recalibrate its strategy, it risks weakening America’s global position - ultimately harming its own long-term interests.