What to watch at the 2025 World Bank-IMF Spring Meetings

The World Bank-International Monetary Fund Spring Meetings that kick off this week are likely to be a quieter affair as the institutions seek to keep a low profile amid uncertainty about their relationship with the United States, their largest shareholder. The two institutions are currently subject to a 180-day review by the Trump administration and thus are expected to tread cautiously, numerous experts told Devex, though one policy expert warned that if there is a big announcement, it's not likely to be good. “I would expect a lot of the global dysfunction that’s surfaced over the past couple of months to really be on full display,” said Clemence Landers, vice president at the Center for Global Development. “Against that backdrop the formal agenda for these meetings is quite sparse. The World Bank is talking a lot about jobs but beyond that it’s not a particularly meaty agenda. I think the institutions are deliberately trying to keep a low profile.” The focus on jobs, economic growth, and the private sector — and much less discussion of climate change or gender equality — is partly about the World Bank and the International Monetary Foundation aligning with the Trump administration rather than finding themselves on the “chopping block,” said Kevin Gallagher, the director at the Boston University Global Development Policy Center. “They’re trying to thread the needle to figure out how to work with the administration in a way that is consistent with what it has been doing thus far and with the mission of the bank,” he said. Amid this uncertainty, the World Bank and IMF are needed now more than ever as countries cut aid budgets and tariffs exacerbate global economic turmoil, creating greater challenges for countries facing debt distress, experts said. Here’s what to watch at the meetings: The United States The big question hanging over these meetings is the U.S. relationship with the World Bank and IMF. Will U.S. President Donald Trump pull the country out of these institutions? Or will it stay? And if it does, what demands might he make. While most sources told Devex it is unlikely that the U.S. will withdraw, anxiety still abounds. Trump called for a 180-day review of all international organizations in a Feb. 4 executive order. And while the process is led by the State Department, the U.S. Treasury is “fully involved with the parts of the review that are relevant to them, with the institutions that they oversee,” a former government official, who requested anonymity to share sensitive information, told Devex. “That is a very important thing because they are the ones with deep knowledge of these institutions,” the former official said. The relevant top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department, which has jurisdiction over the World Bank and IMF, remain vacant, with no nominees announced. Those nominees could provide a signal of administration policy, but multiple sources said that even if the Treasury’s position is to keep the U.S. multilaterally engaged, it’s unclear if the department is the ultimate decision-maker. “This is a very unpredictable administration that we're dealing with where policy is unclear and motivation for what is being done is unclear,” the former official said. “I think that the Treasury recommendation will not be withdrawal. My question mark, though, in this government, is if it's a priority for the White House or for DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency], does any normal process work?” But the U.S. has many reasons to stay engaged, both because the World Bank has efficiently used U.S. contributions and because the U.S. wields a good deal of influence. If the U.S. were to just walk away it would give its competitors like China an advantage,” said Todd Moss, executive director of the Energy for Growth Hub. “But I do think that there are going to be some reforms that the administration is going to want.” Trump could demand various concessions, some which are being discussed — among them, changing the World Bank’s energy policy to be more permissive of natural gas and to include nuclear energy, which is banned. The bank has only financed one nuclear energy project in its history, back in 1959 in Italy. But perhaps one of the biggest wedges between the World Bank and IMF and the Trump administration is climate change, a lightning rod issue for the U.S. president. The bank's emphasis on addressing climate change — supported by the Biden administration — is antithetical to Trump's strident opposition to climate policies and the White House's preference to focus on economic growth. As such, bank staff are likely to not draw attention to its climate and gender work, even as it continues, said a policy advocate, who asked for anonymity to share sensitive conversations. “They’re not putting a lot of weight on that possibility” of a U.S. withdrawal, “but they are just trying to kind of shield themselves against potential attacks and trying to prepare for the type of more transactional disruption that the U.S. could put in place,” the policy advocate said. The Trump administration could also push for the bank to stop lending to China. In his first term, Trump succeeded in getting the bank to reduce lending to the country. The administration may also scrutinize World Bank procurement so that more U.S. companies can do business with the bank, and it could call for more American staff, especially in key positions, according to several sources. When asked about his relationship with the U.S., World Bank President Ajay Banga said the bank has “active” and “constructive” discussions with the Trump administration. He has also been publicly making the case for the institution, and how it provides good value for the money. The World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and private sector arms have received about $29 billion of paid-in capital in its 80-year history, about $3.7 billion in paid-in capital from the U.S. Using those funds, the bank has mobilized nearly $1.5 trillion for development, a return of more than 50 to one, Banga wrote in a recent Financial Times op-ed. Several sources confirmed that Banga has met with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House officials, and many lawmakers in Congress. “Ajay Banga is committed to both building relationships with the new administration and across different parts of government,” the former government official said, adding that he is taking a “pragmatic approach” to linking what recipient countries want with the administration’s priorities. IDA The big funding question mark is whether the Trump administration will honor the $4 billion pledge the Biden administration made last year to the International Development Association, or IDA, the World Bank’s fund for the lowest-income countries. There have not been public signals yet on where funding will land, though most expect at the least a reduction in that pledge, but some are bracing for the U.S. to make no contribution at all. Banga himself said at a press conference last Wednesday that he didn’t know what the U.S. IDA contribution would be, and most sources say it’s unclear when that decision will come. The United Kingdom, which announced significant reductions to its aid budget in February, may also reduce its contribution. If those contributions drop, instead of about $100 billion being available for IDA over the next three years, it’s likely the total will amount to $80 billion to $85 billion, Banga said at the press conference. “This source of flexible concessional finance is needed more than ever, so we need other donors to recognize that and not shy away from it. But it's hard to see where that's going to happen from traditional big IDA donors,” said David McNair, executive director for global policy at the ONE Campaign. The IDA policy and funding package may finally be approved this week, after delays in part due to closed-door discussions about reopening the policy package to make language changes that could better align with Trump administration priorities, sources said. Jobs The official theme of the meetings is job creation, which Banga has focused on for some time. “The World Bank Group is poised to embark on the next phase of our mission: Ensuring job creation and employment are not the byproduct of our projects but an explicit aim of them,” Banga said at the bank’s annual meetings in October. He’s frequently pointed out that 1.2 billion young people will enter the workforce in the next decade, but the forecast is that only 400 million jobs will be created. “That gap is not just an economic issue. I think it's a global risk, because without opportunity, the forces of fragility, of illegal migration, of instability, these forces grow stronger,” he said at the Wednesday press conference. To tackle the issue, the bank is working with governments to finance infrastructure, health care, food security, and other enabling infrastructure for business and jobs creation; supporting regulatory and policy reforms; and mobilizing investment through its private sector arms. The bank’s Private Sector Investment Lab will also be turning its attention to jobs, Banga said. The lab was founded with about 15 CEOs to identify barriers to growth and potential solutions, but in its next phase, it will look to scale solutions and expand its membership to include sectors critical to job creation, including energy, infrastructure, agribusiness, health care, tourism, and manufacturing. “We’re tying it directly to our jobs agenda. That is at the core of our strategy,” Banga said. “We're trying to change things here and look to deploy proven tools to unlock growth, to reduce fragility and generate returns for people, for businesses and for the global economy. And the idea is to build a bank that delivers what is demanded — jobs — because jobs are the best way to drive a nail in the coffin of poverty.” But as the bank focuses on jobs, its scorecard is still missing any data on jobs it has created, or details about what metrics it will use, though the bank tells Devex that is coming. Climate Despite political headwinds from Washington, the World Bank is pressing ahead with its climate finance commitments — even as the Trump administration cracks down on climate-related language and funding at U.S.-backed institutions. The bank recently reaffirmed its target of directing 45% of its financing toward climate-related projects, an increase from previous years. Banga emphasized at the press conference that this financing doesn’t come at the expense of core development goals such as education or health, but rather is part of an integrated strategy that treats climate and development as inseparable. Under Banga’s leadership, the bank has institutionalized climate action, embedding it in everything from staff incentives to new project evaluation tools. The bank also advocated for financial reforms, such as climate-resilient debt clauses and expanded concessional finance. Its climate-related investments now cover both adaptation — such as climate-smart agriculture and heat-resilient infrastructure — and mitigation, including large-scale renewable energy and sustainable transport projects. That commitment, however, is being tested by the political dynamics in the U.S., which holds the bank’s largest voting share and could pressure the institution to soften or even eliminate its climate focus. Fewer climate events will take place at this year’s meeting, a shift some observers say is intended to avoid provoking the Trump administration, while others view it as a normal cycle of focus areas. Other members may support the U.S. when it comes to the climate agenda. While the U.S. holds considerable sway, any rollback of the bank’s climate ambitions would require broader support from other member countries, some of which may see short-term economic opportunities in fossil fuel development. For now, the institution is placing its bets on substance over semantics — hoping that the real-world impact of its projects will speak louder than the labels attached to them. “It’s not like they have this special pot of money which is climate money,” the policy advocate said. “In a lot of cases what the bank calls climate projects are just run-of-the-mill projects that happen to have some kind of climate-sensitive component to them.” Energy While climate might not be in the official spotlight at the Spring Meetings, energy will be, which could include altering the bank’s energy policy and removing its ban on nuclear energy. The bank should have an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that goes beyond renewables and includes a transition plan for all countries, Banga said Wednesday — echoing the Trump administration’s calls for such a strategy. That includes natural gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, and nuclear, “where it makes sense,” he said, though he left out oil and coal in that list, two areas Trump embraces. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has expressed support for an all-of-the-above energy approach, and an increase in natural gas investments would likely be welcomed by African nations that have long seen it as an important source of energy to fuel economic growth. As countries look for consistent energy sources, they are also considering nuclear energy. The bank has prohibited working on or investing in nuclear energy, but Banga has said he wants the board to consider changing that — a move that would have U.S. support. Banga plans to get board approval for the energy policy shifts in June, but expects to discuss them this week, alongside the bank’s Mission 300 initiative to help connect 300 million Africans to electricity by 2030. Debt and tariffs One area where it might be more difficult to avoid a direct discussion of Trump’s policies is tariffs and trade policy. While the U.S. has instituted and reversed or paused tariffs several times, the unpredictable back-and-forth trade policies will have direct and indirect impacts, from increasing the prices of imported goods and fueling inflation to driving up exchange rates, which increases the cost of loan repayments. The uncertainty also triggers capital flight from low-income countries as investors seek to transfer assets to safer investments. At the same time that debt repayments are getting more expensive as a result of the global economic uncertainty, the prospects for debt restructuring agreements under the Group of 20 leading economies “just seem close to zero at this point,” McNair said. “The idea that we have these formal processes at the G7, G20, U.N., to solve these problems is rapidly disappearing,” he said. “A structured route for finding resolutions to these things is more complex.” The IMF is likely to acknowledge a growing debt crisis and the G20 is likely to continue discussions on improving the Common Framework for Debt Relief, though it’s not expected to announce anything at these meetings. However, the G20 is close to an agreement on expanding the number of countries that can apply to the Common Framework and for a debt payment standstill, said a debt expert who asked for anonymity to relay private discussions. “There is a lot more internal, behind-doors work on the low-income countries on the sustainability framework review,” the expert said, but they cautioned that most debt-related proposals have stalled — though a new debt playbook to help guide countries facing debt challenges is expected to be released shortly. The tariffs and global instability could push countries into debt default and will certainly lead to reductions of public spending in areas such as health care and education, the debt expert said. “The resilience of countries is being tested again by the changes in the trade system,” IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva said last Thursday, adding that “trade policy uncertainty is literally off the charts” and the “U.S. effective tariff rate has jumped to levels last seen several lifetimes ago.” Jesse Chase-Lubitz contributed reporting to this article.