Donald Trump used his social media presence to address the BRICS bloc, a grouping that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa among others. He warned that any member country preferring its own currency over the U.S. dollar in global commerce would face punitive tariffs of 100 percent. The message framed the dollar as the anchor of international trade and central to reserve holdings, signaling that the dollar’s primacy would be defended with strong measures. The post conveyed a clear stance: the United States would resist any shift away from the dollar that could change how nations settle cross border transactions or manage their reserves. In this context, currency sovereignty in trade was presented as a strategic objective tied to the health of the U.S. economy and the stability of its financial influence around the world. The rhetoric underscored a willingness to use tariffs and other tools to deter non-dollar settlements and to keep the dollar central to the plumbing of global commerce.
Trump then pressed BRICS to commit not to create a new shared BRICS currency or back an alternative that could replace the strong U.S. dollar. He warned that failure to comply would trigger 100 percent tariffs. The language was presented as a policy directive rather than casual talk, emphasizing that dollar dominance must be preserved in the evolving system of international payments. The stance aligned with a broader objective attributed to his team: to safeguard the currency order and maintain U.S. leverage in global trade. The warning highlighted the view that currency arrangements in international commerce are not simply economic choices but instruments of geopolitical influence, and noncompliance would meet robust measures.
Beyond tariffs, the warning suggested potential limits on trade with nations that abandon the dollar in their dealings. Abandoning the dollar would carry tangible consequences in the form of restricted access to the U.S. market, tighter export controls, and renewed scrutiny of exchange rate practices. The message reflected a belief that currency choices in global trade are deeply tied to national security and strategic interests, not just economics. It indicated a readiness to employ tariff instruments and other measures to deter non-dollar settlements and to keep the dollar at the center of international finance.
As events developed, a late April report by Bloomberg indicated that Trump’s advisers were weighing sanctions on countries that refuse to use the dollar in foreign trade. The contemplated measures could include export controls, accusations of currency manipulation, and the imposition of tariffs. The report described a potential escalation that would blend economic policy with currency strategy, aiming to preserve the dollar’s central role in settlements and reserve holdings. Analysts warned that such a path would require careful calibration to avoid unsettling global supply chains and to reassure allies who depend on a dollar-centered system.
Earlier, Trump voiced anger at other nations for moving away from the dollar. In a March interview with CNBC, he asserted that he would not permit any shift from the dollar, likening it to a defeat in a revolutionary war and arguing that such a move would harm the United States. The rhetoric reflected long standing concerns in U.S. policy circles about losing monetary leverage and the consequences for economic security. Critics warned that hard lines could unsettle markets, while supporters argued the aim was to protect national interests and maintain a predictable framework for international trade. The broader debate centered on how BRICS currency plans could shape the future of the dollar and the global monetary order.