La version française est à venir.
The Takeaway
The 17th BRICS Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on July 6–7, 2025, marked the first major gathering of the expanded bloc, which now comprises 11 members — the original five (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and new entrants Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia (which has not yet formally accepted membership), and the United Arab Emirates. They were joined in Brazil by 10 “partner countries,” including Malaysia and Vietnam.
With the summit held just days before U.S. President Donald Trump’s July 9 “reciprocal tariffs” deadline, the BRICS countries appeared united in pushing back against the tariff threat and sought to present themselves as united on key issues such as global conflicts, artificial intelligence (AI), and critical minerals. However, statements of unity notwithstanding, member states are pursuing divergent strategies in how they are negotiating with the Trump administration. Meanwhile, differences among BRICS member countries also persist on issues such as global conflicts, reforming the multilateral order, and critical minerals.
In Brief
- The expanded BRICS bloc accounts for approximately 40 per cent of global GDP, compared to 28 per cent for the G7, and represents about half of the world’s population.
- In a notable first since taking office, Chinese President Xi Jinping did not attend the summit, missing an opportunity to project China as an alternative to U.S. power. He was represented instead by Premier Li Qiang. Russian President Vladimir Putin attended virtually, as he faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant in connection with alleged war crimes committed in Ukraine.
- Signalling discontent with U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the group’s Joint Declaration voiced concern over “unilateral tariffs and non-tariff measures which distort trade and are inconsistent with WTO rules” — albeit without directly naming the U.S.
- The summit produced a separate leaders’ statement on inclusive AI governance, a roadmap for energy co-operation, and an emphasis on fair and resilient critical mineral supply chains.
- The Joint Declaration avoided, however, the bloc’s past references to trading in local currencies — a potential challenge to the dominance of the U.S. dollar. Nevertheless, President Trump responded to the group’s tariff statement, warning that countries aligning with “anti-American policies” would face an additional 10 per cent tariff. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva responded, saying the world does not want an “emperor.”
Implications
Although the Joint Declaration included veiled criticism of Trump’s tariffs — expressing disapproval of the “proliferation of trade-restrictive actions” — it appears unlikely that members will adopt a united front in opposing them. Each country is pursuing sensitive bilateral negotiations with the U.S. administration in an effort to secure a trade deal before the extended August 1 deadline. While the summit could have been a pivotal moment to forge co-ordinated action and demonstrate that BRICS can provide an alternative to the U.S.-led trade order, its primary outcome was a series of statements unaccompanied by a concrete plan for unified action.
At the Rio summit, BRICS underscored the need to safeguard the multilateral trading system, which is under threat due to Trump’s tariffs. The bloc also called for reforms to the United Nations Security Council, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Bretton Woods system of monetary management, and voiced support for Iran’s bid to join the WTO. However, despite these declarations, member states hold divergent views on how to reform the international order. Moreover, as BRICS countries respond independently — rather than collectively — to the challenge posed by U.S. tariffs, they seem to prioritize their national interests over working jointly to build a reformed multilateral framework.
While the bloc condemned military strikes on Iran, continued Israeli attacks on Gaza, and the recent terrorist attack in India’s Kashmir region, there has also been disagreement among members over how strongly to denounce the U.S. and Israeli actions in Iran and Gaza.
What’s Next
- Which BRICS countries are close to a trade deal with the U.S.?
No BRICS country has finalized a trade agreement with the U.S. Beijing reached a tentative trade framework with Washington in June, but the truce remains fragile, with an August 12 deadline looming for a formal deal to avert renewed tariffs. Trump has also announced steep tariffs on Brazil (50 per cent) following a public spat with President Lula, and on South Africa (30 per cent) amid growing trade tensions — both set to take effect on August 1.
New Delhi, however, appears to be the frontrunner. An interim trade deal with Washington is reportedly nearing completion, although key sectors — such as India’s heavily protected agriculture — remain contentious. As India prepares to assume the BRICS presidency in 2026, it continues to perform a careful balancing act: projecting leadership within the Global South while steering clear of any de-dollarization rhetoric to avoid friction with Washington.
- Critical minerals emerging as a key area of co-operation and competition
While BRICS leaders have pledged co-operation on critical minerals, significant differences persist among key members, particularly China and India — two countries locked in a regional rivalry and engaged in an unresolved border dispute. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi denounced the “weaponization” of critical minerals at the Rio summit following Beijing’s imposition of rare earth export restrictions on India. This signalled pushback against China’s alleged economic coercion and price manipulation, aligning New Delhi more closely with Western-led initiatives. As India seeks secure and stable sources of critical minerals, a partnership with Canada — positioning itself as a key player in the critical minerals sector — shows strong potential.
With global players competing for trade opportunities, partnerships, and investments in this sector, both competition and co-operation are likely to shape their economic and diplomatic strategies.
• Edited by Erin Williams, Director, Programs, and Vina Nadjibulla, Vice-President Research & Strategy, APF Canada
