President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda brought uncertainty into the international system this year, but the multilateral institutions that have been the heart of American soft power for decades thus far can still count the US as a partner.
These institutions – the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank – have served as vital mechanisms for US soft power since the Second World War, with the US leveraging its position as their largest donors to dictate policy.
Former IMF chief economist Maury Obstfeld said fears of a US withdrawal from the Bretton Woods system, a name for the multilateral institution framework, was based on a mistaken belief of an isolationist Trump administration that gained traction from a right-wing blueprint called Project 2025.
“And what's emerged is that the administration is quite interested in projecting its cultural and political agenda abroad, and so from that perspective, these institutions where it wields immense power are an ideal way to do that,” said Mr Obstfeld, who is now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Indeed, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent soothed fears of a US pullback during an address ahead of the World Bank and IMF spring meetings in May.
“America First does not mean America alone. To the contrary, it is a call for deeper collaboration and mutual respect among trade partners,” he said, before listing off a series of reforms the White House wants the IMF and World Bank to make.
Calls for reform go beyond Foggy Bottom. Speaking during the UN General Assembly in New York in September, Mr Trump questioned the effectiveness of the UN in responding to global threats efficiently, portraying it as sluggish and ineffective.
In his confirmation hearing later that month, the now-US ambassador Mike Waltz accused it of “mission creep”, a similar line of attack on other institutions, as he pledged to “make the UN great again”.
Daniel Forti, head of UN affairs at the Crisis Group, expects the US to continue working through these multilaterals “when it suits its interests”, but does not believe the Trump administration want it to be seen as unconditional.
“However, they bristle at the idea that the multilateral system needs to radically shrink and conform to Washington’s worldview in order to improve its impact on the ground,” Mr Forti said.
The cost of soft power
Pushing for reforms is a privilege the US has, as the largest shareholder of these powerful multilateral institutions.
“Something that has been long studied and well acknowledged is that the US … due to being such a large contributor to the United Nations, to the IMF or the World Bank, has allowed it to be able to exercise implements such as putting certain political pressure on those organisations,” said Paul Poast, a professor at the University of Chicago.
The US remains the UN's largest donor, contributing 22 per cent of the regular budget and 26 per cent of peacekeeping costs. Its position as the UN's largest donor allows the US to leverage the institution for reforms and, at times, threaten to cut funding to push for changes.
Mr Forti said the Trump administration sees its “return on investment” as too limited to justify its role as the UN's largest funder, leading the US to leverage its geopolitical weight to either press for major changes or cut funding unilaterally.
Those cuts include roughly $380 million in grants to the UN Population Fund, as a full withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, Unesco, the UN Human Rights Council and the Paris Climate Accord. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the institution will cut its budget by 15.1 per cent and reduce its staff count by 18.8 per cent. The UN's 2026 budget was set at $3.24 billion, a decrease of $577 million from this year.
Foreign policy and energy dynamics
The IMF is currently engaged in economic programmes with Egypt, Jordan and Ukraine, three countries that are critical to the US's security interest. It also remains in discussions on a potential programme with Lebanon, another major player in the Middle East.
“The list goes on and on where the IMF plays a really critical role. And I think that's just obvious to anyone who's following foreign policy, that these institutions play a really important role and are great value for the United States,” said Mary Svenstrup, a former Biden official who is now at the Centre for Global Development.
And Argentina, a prominent player on the IMF budget sheet whose President is a friend of Mr Trump, recently received a $20 billion bailout from the fund followed by a $20 billion currency swap from the Treasury Department to combat inflation and attract investment.
“These international institutions can also be important vehicles for rewarding friends and punishing enemies,” Mr Obstfeld said.
Like at the UN, the US also reduced its pledge at the World Bank from $4 billion to $3.2 billion, according to the White House's 2026 budget. Still, it retains its status as the bank's top donor.
The Trump administration's energy push has also made some gains. The IMF is folding its climate and gender units into one with a focus on structural policies, while the World Bank has lifted its ban on funding nuclear energy projects. And while the Trump administration is pushing for an all-of-the-above approach towards energy, it is unclear how much support the US push for more coal will receive.
“There's long been a call at Treasury for the institutions to engage on the issue of climate change policy in a way that fits with their mandate. But the broader push, the anti-climate agenda is different in this administration,” said Ms Svenstrup.
Rivalling interests
In a continuation of past administrations, the Trump administration has also pushed the Bretton Woods institutions to get tougher on China, which has emerged as an alternative global lender.
“China can set up alternative frameworks, such as the Belt and Road initiative, that in many ways serve as competitors to the World Bank in the IMF,” said Mr Poast. This is as Beijing's BRI increasingly mirrors the scale and reach of the IMF and World Bank by financing large cross-border infrastructure and development projects.
Other lines of criticism directed at the IMF and World Bank concern how they address China, whose trade surplus topped $1 trillion this year. In its most recent annual economic check-in with Beijing, the IMF urged China to address those economic imbalances, arguing its population is too large to rely on exports for growth.
The delicate dynamic extends to the UN's powerful Security Council, where China and the US both hold vetoes. For Beijing, the council is a “helpful space” to maintain daily relations not just with the US, but also other permanent members, Mr Forti said.
“There is a limit to how deep this arrangement extends, as both countries disagree on many issues and harbour some degree of mutual suspicion,” he said.
G20 heads to Miami
Another cornerstone of the international economic order is also now caught in the Trump administration's crosshairs: the Group of 20.
With the US assuming the presidency of the G20, the US is now pushing for it to return to its “core mission” in similar language it has used in pushing for reforms at the UN, IMF and World Bank. These reforms, the US has said, will focus on deregulation, unlocking affordable energy and driving new technologies.
Ms Svenstrup, who was the Biden administration's sous sherpa to the G7 and G20, agreed that the Trump administration is correct in aiming to prioritise global economic challenges within the forum.
But it also comes amid escalating tensions between the US and South Africa, with the latter being disinvited from next year's gatherings after the US boycotted the 2025 forum in Johannesburg. Mr Trump has repeatedly alleged the South African government of discriminating against its white population.
“Threatening to bar them, or actually barring them from the summit is just a pointless distraction that will sour the entire US host here, and would strengthen China's pro-multilateralism stance vis-a-vis the Global South in the G20 and as it hosts Apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation) next year,” Ms Svenstrup said. “So I hope that's something that they reverse course on.”
Next year's G20 is set to take place in Miami, the city in south Florida that is emerging as a hotbed for geopolitical and economic activity. The city, which is 112km south of Mr Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, this year hosted Saudi Arabia's FII Summit, an America Business forum, and was where Ukrainian officials held ceasefire talks with members of the Trump administration.
Mr Poast said the forum offers Mr Trump another platform to command the world's attention, similar to the annual address at the UN's headquarters. “What I'm going to be watching is, how are they going to be using their position within the G20 to put forward globally their America First foreign policy,” he said.
