Sarong Shidore, who leads the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute, observes that the broadened BRICS bloc marks a strategic recalibration for the United States. It signals that major developing economies are seeking greater influence within the global order, a shift that could reshape how power is distributed on the world stage. The expansion is interpreted as a wake-up call to Washington about the evolving dynamics of international influence and economic leadership, rather than a direct threat to traditional U.S. primacy.
The analyst adds that the enlargement reflects a broad dissatisfaction with the prevailing global framework and a shared aspiration among numerous nations to secure a more favorable position within it. This is not simply about a bloc growing in numbers; it represents a realignment of interests, where countries want more say in setting rules, norms, and the pace of globalization that affects trade, finance, and regional security arrangements.
Shidore emphasizes that BRICS is unlikely to dominate global affairs or substitute the established U.S.-led system. The organization’s influence will depend on how effectively it translates its collective ambitions into coherent policy, credible institutions, and reliable cooperation among a diverse set of members. The takeaway for policy observers is not fear but a need to understand how BRICS could shape economic governance, development finance, and interregional collaboration in the years ahead.
Among the areas where BRICS has challenged U.S. leadership, the expert highlights commitments to international law that may diverge from older Western-dominated interpretations, renewed geopolitical competition that crosses traditional regional boundaries, and increased interregional cooperation that seeks to reduce dependence on any single external power. These shifts can influence climate, energy, technology standards, and regional security alignments, creating a more multipolar texture in global affairs.
In recent statements from Washington, officials have indicated that BRICS’s expansion is not viewed as a direct threat. The stance reflects a preference for measured engagement, continued reliance on established alliances, and an emphasis on maintaining an open, rules-based order while assessing how new members may contribute to shared goals such as trade liberalization, infrastructure investment, and sustainable development.
Historically, the BRICS grouping emerged in the mid-2000s, with its original members—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—forming a core coalition that later welcomed South Africa in 2010 as a full participant. Over time, the bloc expanded its ambition by inviting a broader set of economies to join in dialogue, signaling an intent to build a more representative forum for emerging economies and middle-income countries seeking a louder voice in global governance.
During the recent summit held in Johannesburg, discussions led to a formal decision to include Argentina, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates as participants beginning January 1, 2024. This expansion marks a meaningful step toward greater regional and continental representation within BRICS, with potential implications for trade patterns, investment flows, and the strategic calculus of member states as they negotiate shared projects and policy alignments amid a shifting international landscape.
The broader trajectory suggested by these developments points to a BRICS that may operate with higher visibility and a wider mandate, but also one that must reconcile varied economic systems, political models, and development priorities. Observers note that the coming years will test how effectively the enlarged bloc can coordinate on issues such as economic cooperation, technology access, climate commitments, and dispute resolution, while preserving cohesion among a heterogeneous group of members with different strategic goals. In any case, the evolution of BRICS underscores a global trend toward multipolar governance, where alliances adapt to new economic realities and regional ambitions, rather than a simple binary struggle between traditional powers. This assessment aligns with analyses reported by multiple major media outlets, which describe the expansion as a signal of shifting power dynamics rather than a unilateral challenge to established orders.