The US president has ordered a review of US-funded international organizations, which he claims unfairly benefit other nations. As the IMF and World Bank hold their Spring summits this week, are their futures secure?

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank rarely capture headlines outside periods of significant upheaval. A Google search for debt-laden Argentina, for instance, is as likely to bring up articles about IMF loans as it is to celebrate Lionel Messi’s latest football triumph.

The IMF’s latest $20 billion (€17.4 billion) debt relief for Argentina, its largest debtor nation, was announced last week to help libertarian President Javier Milei continue reforming the South American country’s economy after decades of wasteful spending.

However, the World Bank’s work tends to fly under the radar. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it quietly delivered $170 billion in loans and grants to over 100 countries, according to its website, reaching some 70% of the world’s population.

As the IMF and World Bank convene for their Spring Meetings in Washington, DC, from Thursday, they face significant uncertainty. First, US President Donald Trump’s tariff policy is threatening to derail global economic growth. Second, the future of the United States backing of these organizations is up for question.

Project 2025’s push to exit IMF, World Bank

Speculation has been rife since Project 2025, a hard-right Republican policy framework tied to Trump’s second term, proposed a US withdrawal from both institutions, labeling them “expensive middlemen” that redirect US funds globally.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization, coupled with an order in February to review all US-funded international organizations within 180 days, has further fueled concerns about the US’s future involvement in the IMF and World Bank. The White House has yet to name executive directors to both bodies, signaling a deliberate pause in engagement.

The US has, however, reaped substantial benefits from these institutions, both economically and through soft power projection. With the largest voting share in both the IMF and World Bank, the US has effective veto power over major decisions. Loans to indebted nations often come with conditions like market liberalization that align with US interests.

How might Trump negotiate a better deal?

“Trump could argue, ‘Increase your funding, and you’ll gain a larger vote share,'” Wade said of the US president’s possible negotiation tactic. “It’s more likely that the US would make at least a serious threat to leave the World Bank [rather than the IMF].”

While regional banks like the Asian Development Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank could partially fill the World Bank’s role, alternatives to the IMF are scarce. BRICS efforts to create an IMF counterpart have stalled.

Gurdgiev argues that Trump is looking to the IMF and World Bank to be “cheerleaders” for his high-tariff, America First policy agenda and sees Washington making moves to curb China and other BRICS nations’ influence in both organizations.

“But those institutions have enough intellectual integrity to understand how dangerous these policies are to both the US and global economy,” he added.

Storm clouds over global economy

Indeed, there are growing concerns that Trump’s aggressive trade policies, if fully enacted and retaliated against, have the potential to trigger a major global financial crisis. The IMF is due to lower its growth forecast for dozens of countries on Tuesday as the choking of global trade puts pressure on the debt burdens of many nations.

“The global financial situation now is very fragile and could easily tip into a financial crisis,” warned Wade, the political economy professor. He predicted that Trump would be forced to “pull back” from any talk about leaving the IMF and World Bank “if clear signs of a debt crisis emerge.”

Gurdgiev, meanwhile, warns that a lack of engagement by Washington in both institutions only adds to the current pessimism about Trump’s economic policies and the US’s future role in global affairs. This precariousness, he believes, could create a systemic crisis at a time when both the IMF and World Bank are severely weakened.

“We are neutering the ability of institutions that act as a lender of last resort to do their jobs,” Gurdgiev, who is also a visiting professor at Trinity College Dublin, warned. “It’s a complete and utter nonsense.”