That’s according to a report Sunday (Sept. 20) by the Financial Times (FT), which says the program has drawn controversy in the U.S. due to concerns that participating countries could use it to skirt dollar-dominated payment systems like Swift.
mBridge, soon due to be launched commercially, employs blockchain technology to transact directly between central banks using their digital currencies, reducing the time and costs of foreign exchange transactions and shrinking the role of the dollar as an intermediary currency, the report said.
Saudi Arabia, a historic U.S. ally in the Middle East, became an active participant in mBridge in 2024, along with China, Hong Kong, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and the Bank for International Settlements, which initially led the project but has since stepped away.
The Saudi government confirmed to the FT that it left the program in 2025, saying it was its plan all along. The report said its exit has not been previously reported.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
Asked if the Saudi Central Bank (SAMA) had faced pressure to withdraw from the U.S., a source familiar with the matter told the FT it would be “inaccurate to draw any wider inference” from the decision given that its involvement with mBridge was already limited.
The report added that President Donald Trump has threatened the BRICS countries – a group of 10 major economies that include China, Russia, and India – with 100% tariffs if they persist with finding alternatives to the dollar.
Eswar Prasad, professor at Cornell University and senior fellow at Brookings, said many U.S. allies viewed initiatives such as mBridge as an economic benefit and a way to lessen reliance on the dollar-dominated global financial system.
“But they are also acutely sensitive to U.S. pushback against initiatives seen as potentially reducing the dollar’s importance and, even worse, boosting the Chinese renminbi’s role in international finance,” Prasad said.
However, he added that “backing off from such initiatives puts caution ahead of valour” considering the potential advantages of these financial innovations.
A report earlier this year by the Atlantic Council said that mBridge had processed 4,047 transactions with a total transaction volume of $55.49 billion as of November of 2025. That’s up from 160 transactions with a total transaction volume of $22 million that were processed by October 2022.
Facts Only
* mBridge is a blockchain-based payment system for direct transactions between central banks using digital currencies.
* Participating entities included China, Hong Kong, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and the Bank for International Settlements.
* The Bank for International Settlements initially led the project but has since departed.
* Saudi Arabia joined mBridge in 2024 and exited the program in 2025.
* The Saudi government stated its exit was planned from the beginning.
* mBridge processed 4,047 transactions totaling $55.49 billion as of November 2025.
* In October 2022, the system had processed 160 transactions totaling $22 million.
* Donald Trump has threatened BRICS countries with 100% tariffs if they pursue alternatives to the U.S. dollar.
* The U.S. has expressed concerns that mBridge allows countries to bypass dollar-dominated systems like Swift.
Executive Summary
The mBridge project represents a shift toward blockchain-enabled central bank digital currencies designed to reduce transaction costs, speed up foreign exchange, and diminish the U.S. dollar's role as a global intermediary. While the system has seen massive growth in transaction volume—rising from $22 million in 2022 to over $55 billion by late 2025—it has become a focal point of geopolitical tension. The United States views such initiatives as a threat to the Swift payment system and the broader dominance of the dollar.
This tension is exemplified by Saudi Arabia's brief participation and subsequent exit in 2025, as well as threats of severe tariffs against BRICS nations that seek dollar alternatives. While some economists argue these innovations provide essential economic benefits and diversification for U.S. allies, there is a pervasive sensitivity to U.S. political pressure and the risk of inadvertently increasing the global influence of the Chinese renminbi. It remains unclear to what extent external political pressure influenced specific withdrawals from the program.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative describes a systemic collision between emerging financial technology and established geopolitical hegemony. On one side is the drive for technical efficiency and monetary sovereignty; on the other is the strategic necessity of the "exorbitant privilege" enjoyed by the U.S. dollar.
The framing relies heavily on the tension between "economic benefit" and "political risk," presenting a landscape where nations must choose between financial innovation and diplomatic stability. This echoes the historical pattern of "financial statecraft," where payment rails are used not just for commerce, but as instruments of foreign policy and leverage. The unstated assumption is that the dollar's dominance is a zero-sum game: any gain for mBridge is a direct loss for U.S. influence.
The implication for human agency is a narrowing of options for smaller economies. If the global financial architecture splits into competing blocs, the "cost" of innovation becomes political alignment. Those who benefit are the architects of new systems and the superpowers leveraging them; those who bear the cost are the mid-sized states caught in the crossfire of tariff threats and diplomatic pressure.
Patterns detected: none
Bridge Questions:
1. Would a neutral, non-aligned international body managing such a system mitigate U.S. security concerns?
2. To what extent does the technical efficiency of blockchain actually offset the political risk of abandoning the dollar?
3. Is the move toward digital currencies a genuine pursuit of efficiency, or primarily a strategic hedge against sanctions?
Counterstrike Scan:
An influence campaign pushing this narrative would likely amplify fear of "financial collapse" or "Chinese dominance" to justify aggressive protectionist tariffs. The current content does not match this pattern; it maintains a neutral tone and provides data on transaction volumes and expert perspectives without resorting to alarmism.