Treasury Official Says Withdrawing The US From The IMF And World Bank Would Be A ‘Step Backward’
WASHINGTON — A senior U.S. Treasury official expressed that withdrawing from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank would represent a significant regression for the United States, emphasizing the importance of these organizations as the nation approaches a pivotal election that might influence America’s role within them.
Jay Shambaugh, the deputy secretary of international affairs, indicated during a speech that a proposal associated with Project 2025 suggests potential withdrawal from these financial institutions, especially if Donald Trump ascends to the presidency again.
This proposal is a component of a strategic plan by a conservative think tank aimed at guiding a future Republican administration. Although Trump has distanced himself from this document, asserting it does not influence his campaign, the implications of such a withdrawal remain under scrutiny.
Shambaugh articulated concerns regarding the proposal, stating, “There are those who have suggested that the US withdraw from these institutions; this would be a step backward for our economic security.” He further noted that without strong American leadership, the influence of the US on these institutions would diminish, thereby weakening their efficacy—a situation that would be detrimental to global economic stability.
The IMF and World Bank, often termed lenders of last resort, possess the ability to provide extensive financial resources, including billions in loans and aid, which are crucial to supporting struggling economies. These organizations also advocate for necessary reforms in deficit countries aimed at fostering economic stability and growth.
When asked directly about the implications of the Project 2025 proposal during a question-and-answer session, Shambaugh referenced the limitations imposed by the Hatch Act, which restricts political engagement by federal employees. He remarked that proposals advocating for US withdrawal from these institutions have circulated for decades, primarily from those who believe that the US would thrive independently of them. However, Shambaugh countered, “I would just say that I think the evidence suggests this is completely inaccurate.”
The more than 1,000-page Project 2025 document includes recommendations for the Treasury Department to cease all financial contributions to the World Bank and the IMF. The authors argue that these institutions act as costly intermediaries, diverting essential funds away from those truly in need.
In response, Democratic leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris, have utilized aspects of Project 2025 as a political weapon against Trump. While Trump has denied direct involvement with the Heritage Foundation’s roadmap, many of his former aides and allies were instrumental in crafting this comprehensive transition plan.
Danielle Alvarez, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, articulated that the only legitimate representation of Trump’s policy for a potential second term resides within the campaign itself, independent of any outside entities. She further clarified that the campaign’s published pledges are the sole policies endorsed by Trump.
As this debate unfolds, the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank are set to occur in Washington this month, serving as a significant backdrop for these critical discussions regarding America’s financial leadership on the world stage.
