In the volatile theatre of global geopolitics, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank serve not merely as economic instruments but as strategic assets. Their mandates go far beyond financing—they influence political alignments, global development priorities and the strategic ambitions of major powers. For the United States, these Bretton Woods institutions have long acted as diplomatic extensions of Washington’s will. However, if Donald Trump, or any administration echoing the blueprint of “Project 2025”, chooses to withdraw from them, it will mark a historic geopolitical retreat for America, with profound consequences.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” outlines a bold plan for Trump’s potential second term, advocating for a full-scale review of US involvement in international organisations. Framed as an effort to “unshackle” American policy from multilateral constraints, it directly targets the IMF and World Bank—branding them as “unnecessary intermediaries”. The objective? Withdraw US involvement, redirect funds and pursue direct bilateral engagements aligned more tightly with America’s political goals. But the plan is deeply flawed, both economically and strategically. The US would not only lose policy influence but also weaken its capacity to project power through soft diplomacy and global economic governance.

The US is the largest shareholder in both the IMF and the World Bank. At the IMF, it holds 16.5% of the voting power—just above the critical 15% threshold needed to block major decisions, which require an 85% supermajority. At the World Bank, it holds a 15.5% share. These stakes allow Washington to shape conditionalities, approve leadership appointments and determine the trajectory of development financing across the globe.

If Trump chooses to pull the plug on this arrangement, it will effectively be ceding that control to rising powers like China and the European Union. Already, the BRICS countries have established alternative institutions such as the New Development Bank. A weakened US role at the IMF and World Bank could accelerate this multipolar trend, giving non-Western states greater voice in global finance.

The IMF does not just give out loans; it provides the United States with a powerful geo-political tool. Take Argentina, 2018. When the country faced a currency crisis, the IMF stepped in with a record-breaking $57 billion bailout. The Trump administration backed this because then-president Mauricio Macri was a pro-American ally. Although the loan came from global IMF resources, US influence tipped the scales. Without a seat at the table, future decisions on emergency aid to key allies such as Ukraine, Taiwan or strategic African nations may be made without American input. In a crisis-driven world, that is not a risk Washington can afford.

On the other hand, the World Bank’s mission to reduce poverty and support development also serves American soft power objectives. It invests in infrastructure, governance and social development across more than 100 countries. After the US military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, World Bank financing supported post-war reconstruction. In fragile states and conflict zones, its involvement complements American military and diplomatic efforts. In other words, these institutions are integral parts of Washington’s global toolkit.

Critics of US participation often cite the high costs, but the financial facts tell a different story. The United States has pledged $3.7 billion in paid-in capital to the World Bank. That is just 19% of the $20 billion the federal government has handed to Elon Musk’s SpaceX over the last 15 years. 

In 2018, during Trump’s first term, the US approved a $7.5 billion capital increase for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) but with no immediate cash outlay. Most World Bank funds come from bond markets—last year, it issued $52.4 billion in bonds. The capital member states pledge (called callable capital) is only tapped in emergencies. To date, that emergency has never occurred. This means that American taxpayers contribute relatively little towards exchange for outsized global influence.

If the US exits or simply stops paying its dues, its voting rights can be suspended. Under World Bank rules, countries that fail to meet obligations can be stripped of privileges. If this suspension lasts over a year, the US could lose its membership unless reinstated by a 70% vote. That would mean losing access to critical financial intelligence, development partnerships and most importantly, the ability to veto or shape major decisions. Imagine a future where China, Russia or even the European Union holds greater sway over where billions in development aid go and the US has no say.

Withdrawing from these institutions is not just symbolic. It creates strategic vacuums. Allies may begin to question America’s commitment to multilateralism. Fragile states may turn to China’s Belt and Road Initiative or to BRICS for assistance, resulting in an erosion of American credibility, deterrence and influence. This would also undermine US efforts on global challenges, from pandemic preparedness and refugee resettlement to climate change mitigation and counterterrorism. Both the IMF and World Bank are deeply embedded in global solutions, backed by research teams, field missions and decades of experience. They are more than banks; they are knowledge centres and conveners of global consensus.

The global community need not passively await America’s decision. If other nations remain resolute, they can uphold the rules-based order. Already, the G7 and G20 are expanding financial contributions and nations like Germany, Japan and the UK have shown commitment to these institutions. Their leadership will be crucial if the US retreats. It is time for these countries to increase their voting shares, fund key programmes and step into the leadership vacuum.

President Theodore Roosevelt famously advised, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” But the Trump administration seems to have reversed the wisdom—speaking loudly while tossing aside the very instruments that made the US a global superpower. If Trump follows through on withdrawing from the IMF and World Bank, the United States will not merely lose leverage but it will forfeit the architecture it spent decades building. The vacuum left behind will be filled by others— perhaps not with democratic values or strategic alignment. The choice is clear. Preserve multilateral influence or isolate and diminish. Retreat is not strength; it is surrender by another name.
____________________________________
The writer is a physician, activist and international award-winning youth leader. He can be reached at [email protected]