There will be much to chew over at the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) spring meetings this week.
Central bankers and finance ministers will descend on Washington for its latest bi-annual gathering, a place where politicians and academics converge, all of them trying to make sense of what’s going on in the global economy.
Everything and nothing has changed since they last met in October – one man continues to dominate the agenda.
Six months ago, delegates were wondering if Donald Trump could win the election and what that might mean for tax and tariffs: How far would he push it? Would his policy match his rhetoric?
Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters
This time round, expect iterations of the same questions: Will the US president risk plunging the world’s largest economy into recession?
Yes, he put on a bombastic display on his so-called “Liberation Day”, but will he now row back? Have the markets effectively checked him?
Behind the scenes, finance ministers from around the world will be practising their powers of persuasion, each jostling for meetings with their US counterparts to negotiate a reduction in Trump’s tariffs.
That includes Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who is still holding out hope for a trade deal with the US – although she is not alone in that.
Read more:
PM and Trump step up trade talks
Ed Conway on the impact of US tariffs
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Could Trump make a deal with UK?
Are we heading for a recession?
The IMF’s economists have already made up their minds about Trump’s potential for damage.
Last week, they warned about the growing risks to financial stability after a period of turbulence in the financial markets, induced by Trump’s decision to ratchet up US protectionism to its highest level in a century.
By the middle of this week the organisation will publish its World Economic Outlook, in which it will downgrade global growth but stop short of predicting a full-blown recession.
Others are less optimistic.
Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF’s managing director, said last week: “Our new growth projections will include notable markdowns, but not recession. We will also see markups to the inflation forecasts for some countries.”
She acknowledged the world was undergoing a “reboot of the global trading system,” comparing trade tensions to “a pot that was bubbling for a long time and is now boiling over”.
She went on: “To a large extent, what we see is the result of an erosion of trust – trust in the international system, and trust between countries.”
IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva. Pic: Reuters
Don’t poke the bear
It was a carefully calibrated response. Georgieva did not lay the blame at the US’s door and stopped short of calling on the Trump administration to stop or water down its aggressive tariffs policy.
That might have been a choice. To the frustration of politicians past and present, the IMF does not usually shy away from making its opinions known.
Last year it warned Jeremy Hunt against cutting taxes, and back in 2022 it openly criticised the Liz Truss government’s plans, warning tax cuts would fuel inflation and inequality.
Taking such a candid approach with Trump invites risks. His administration is already weighing up whether to withdraw from global institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank.
The US is the largest shareholder in both, and its departure could be devastating for two organisations that have been pillars of the world economic order since the end of the Second World War.
👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈
Here in the UK, Andrew Bailey has already raised concerns about the prospect of global fragmentation.
It is “very important that we don’t have a fragmentation of the world economy,” the Bank of England’s governor said.
“A big part of that is that we have support and engagement in the multilateral institutions, institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, that support the operation of the world economy. That’s really important.”
The Trump administration might take a different view when its review of intergovernmental organisations is complete.
That is the main tension running through this year’s spring meetings.
How much the IMF will say and how much we will have to read between the lines, remains to be seen.
