US IMF Exit Could Trigger a True Dollar Shock and Redraw Global Reserves

The US dollar is facing its roughest start to a year since 1989 as policy shifts under the Trump administration spark questions about the currency’s staying power, its role in global finance, and the United States’ participation in key international institutions. A proposal to exit the International Monetary Fund would represent a radical departure from decades of global monetary cooperation, and it comes amid a broader push that has included sweeping trade barriers, realignments with traditional allies, and aggressive public critiques of the Federal Reserve and other U.S. financial authorities. The mix of policy moves and hostile rhetoric has fed fears that the dollar may be overvalued relative to emerging risk premia, even as some investors weigh the benefits of a weaker currency to regain global competitiveness. The dollar index has declined by about 8.4% so far in 2025, underscoring the market’s reassessment of American economic leadership and the reliability of dollar-denominated assets.

The dollar’s slide, policy turmoil, and market implications

The ongoing policy debates and the front-page questions about America’s role in international finance have helped magnify a downturn in the dollar’s standing. Global funds have long been central to driving U.S. markets higher for more than a decade, leveraging a broad appetite for dollar-denominated assets. Yet the current environment—characterized by aggressive fiscal and regulatory talk, a few high-profile departures from international agreements, and sustained tensions with U.S. institutions—has prompted a broader revaluation of risk and return. In practical terms, even modest shifts in the dollar’s value can produce outsized consequences for unhedged investors holding euro-denominated or other non-dollar exposures, turning what might have been a modest Treasury setback into a more pronounced decline when measured in the investors’ home currencies. The net effect is a renewed sensitivity to the U.S. government’s credit profile and to the perceived predictability of the United States as a safe haven during global turmoil.

Investor sentiment has also become more cautious about the reliability of Treasuries as safe and liquid assets in times of geopolitical stress or policy uncertainty. The value proposition of U.S.-backed assets has historically rested on a stable political and macroeconomic backdrop, but the current narrative has shifted toward questions about the durability of U.S. policy commitments and the long-term consequences of political rhetoric for financial stability. The uncertainty has, in turn, dampened the aura of predictability that usually surrounds the dollar and its associated cash and debt instruments. Against that backdrop, some market participants are re-evaluating hedging strategies, portfolio allocations, and the extent to which the dollar’s traditional role as the world’s default reserve currency can coexist with a more adversarial stance toward multilateral financial arrangements.

To place these moves into context, it’s useful to recall that the dollar’s sensitivity to policy shifts isn’t new, but the current moment is notable for its explicit consideration of structural changes to the system that have long been treated as off-limits. The question for markets is whether these tensions will be resolved through negotiation and reform within existing institutions, through selective exits and partial disengagements, or through a broader recalibration of the global monetary order. The market’s reaction to this triad of policy pressure—trade barriers, alliance realignments, and outspoken attacks on central-bank independence—has been a reminder that the dollar’s fate remains tied not only to U.S. growth trajectories but also to the resilience and adaptability of the international monetary framework.

The potential consequences for the dollar extend beyond immediate price movements. If the dollar were to lose its reserve-currency supremacy, even gradually, the knock-on effects could include shifts in interest rates, terms of trade, and the availability of dollar-based financing for both sovereigns and private borrowers. In a world where central banks diversify away from the dollar, funding costs for U.S. households and firms could rise, and the United States could face higher borrowing costs on new issuances. The broader implication would be a reconfiguration of global financial intermediation, with potential implications for liquidity and market depth in dollar markets. In short, the current environment is not simply about a single-year dip in the dollar index; it is about whether foundational aspects of the international monetary system—centered on the dollar—could be altered by political decisions and strategic realignments.

The IMF exit proposal: scope, timing, and rationale

A striking feature of the policy conversation is the explicit consideration—by some conservative policymakers and think tanks—of withdrawing the United States from the International Monetary Fund. The ambit of this proposal extends beyond a mere symbolic stance; it envisions a fundamental reordering of international financial architecture, with profound implications for U.S. influence, global liquidity, and the dollar’s reserve status. Proponents argue that the IMF, along with the World Bank, has become an expensive intermediary that imposes constraints and mandates that do not align with U.S. interests. They contend that reforms are necessary to recalibrate the balance of power within these institutions, ensure accountability, and redirect resources toward national priorities and competitive strategies.

The debate has intensified in the wake of a document produced for the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership,” a policy compilation that argues for a comprehensive withdrawal from both the IMF and the World Bank. The document frames these institutions as costly middlemen whose operations and governance fail to reflect the modern financial landscape. It calls for the U.S. to terminate its financial contributions and to withdraw from member participation. The argument hinges on the belief that reform could not be achieved within the current structure and that the United States should pivot away from funding and underwriting an international framework that it sees as misaligned with its own interests and priorities.

Complicating the internal debate is a formal process already set in motion by a January executive action from the administration. The executive order established a review of membership in all international intergovernmental organizations, with a 180-day timeline to assess whether the United States should withdraw from any such organizations, conventions, or treaties. The purpose of that review is to evaluate strategic alignment, financial commitments, and potential alternative arrangements that could better serve U.S. economic and security objectives. The review is scheduled to deliver its findings in July, a deadline that has significant implications for policymakers, markets, and the broader international community.

There is a broader pattern to the current impulse toward reevaluating multilateral commitments. The administration’s prior actions—including the withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and the World Health Organization and steps that amount to a de-emphasis of participation in the World Trade Organization—reflect a wider view of international engagement. Taken together, these moves suggest a redesigned approach to how the United States interacts with global institutions, balancing the strategic benefits of coordination against perceived constraints on sovereignty, policy flexibility, and domestic decision-making autonomy. In that sense, the IMF debate is part of a larger strategic calculus about how far the United States should go in sustaining a rules-based, multilateral economic order—and at what cost to its domestic agenda.

The potential departure from the IMF would, in practice, amount to a mechanical unraveling of how the world finances reserve holdings and conducts central-bank operations across borders. The detailed mechanics of such a withdrawal would involve complex financial disentanglement, treaty-based agreements, and transitional arrangements with other international players. The scale of the task would be enormous, touching on issues ranging from outstanding financial commitments and unresolved lender-of-last-resort obligations to how remaining IMF members would recalibrate access to liquidity during times of distress. Observers have noted that the financial and operational implications of a U.S. departure could be both wide-ranging and long-lasting, with consequences that would extend well beyond the IMF’s day-to-day lending operations and into the broader fabric of global finance.

The policy dialogue surrounding the IMF is therefore not simply a theoretical exercise. It reflects a contested view of how the United States should balance national interests with the benefits of participating in a deeply integrated international financial framework. While some observers see a withdrawal as a signal of strategic independence and a critical step toward reasserting sovereignty, others warn that such a move could trigger destabilizing outcomes, disrupt the liquidity that countries rely on during crises, and undermine confidence in the dollar’s role as a global anchor. The July timing of the review adds urgency to these discussions, since market participants will closely parse any official signals about the likelihood and consequences of a potential exit.

Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership

A centerpiece of the current policy discussion is the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which outlines a conservative blueprint for the next presidential administration. Within its framework, the Mandate for Leadership document goes far beyond incremental reform; it calls for the United States to withdraw from both the World Bank and the IMF and to sever financial contributions to these institutions. The document characterizes these multilateral bodies as inefficient and costly intermediaries and argues that the United States should pursue reforms through alternative channels rather than through continued participation in these organizations. The tone is unequivocal: the United States should disengage from the IMF and the World Bank and reallocate influence and resources in ways that supporters believe will better serve American economic and strategic interests.

The implications of such a proposal go beyond symbolic gestures or budgetary reallocations. If implemented, a U.S. withdrawal would alter the global distribution of voting powers and financial clout within the IMF, potentially accelerating shifts in the composition of the IMF’s governing bodies and altering the fund’s policy priorities. Observers anticipate that the dollar’s status as the dominant reserve currency would be challenged as an inevitable corollary, given that IMF operations are predominantly denominated in dollars and financed by member contributions. The practical effects would likely ripple through the pricing of international lending, sovereign debt markets, and the cost and availability of liquidity for distressed borrowers who rely on IMF mechanisms to stabilize economies in crisis.

Critics of the Mandate for Leadership warn of unintended consequences that would accompany any abrupt withdrawal. They argue that a sudden move could prompt a rapid reconfiguration of international liquidity, trigger risk premia in a world already grappling with global financial tensions, and complicate the ability of emerging and developing economies to access affordable financing during shocks. The fear is that the absence of a functioning global lender of last resort could lead to greater volatility in currency markets, higher borrowing costs, and a renewed scramble for cash and hard assets in times of distress. Proponents of reform, by contrast, contend that a restructured, more accountable framework could yield more favorable outcomes for U.S. sovereignty, economic autonomy, and the direction of global financial governance.

Within the broader policy landscape, Project 2025’s stance aligns with a broader pattern of skepticism toward multilateralism that has gained traction in some political circles. It reflects a conviction that a reimagined international financial architecture could better serve national interests by reducing external dependencies and restoring supervisory and policy autonomy to the United States. Yet the document’s more dramatic prescriptions—such as wholesale withdrawal from IMF and World Bank membership—also underscore the degree to which the current debate has shifted from incremental reform to questions about the long-term viability of a deeply interconnected global order. As July’s review looms, investors, policymakers, and economists will be watching closely for signals about whether this blueprint remains a live policy option or an aspirational, if politically provocative, set of goals.

The discourse around Project 2025 also highlights a tension that has long characterized U.S. foreign economic policy: the balance between leadership within a liberal international order and the desire to protect and prioritize national interests. The Mandate for Leadership document explicitly calls for reforms within international institutions, but it goes further by advocating withdrawal if reforms prove insufficient. This stance invites a broader public debate about the role of U.S. leadership in global finance, the mechanisms by which international cooperation is financed and governed, and the degree to which exclusion from major institutions would be tolerable in pursuit of strategic objectives. As the July review approaches, the practical implications of Project 2025 will likely become more tangible in policy circles and market narratives, with observers weighing the potential benefits of autonomy against the costs of disengagement from a system that has, for decades, underpinned global liquidity and economic stability.

IMF exit: consequences for dollar reserves and the SDR

Experts have long warned that a U.S. withdrawal from the IMF would not merely change a treaty sign-off or a budget line item; it would mechanically alter the global architecture of reserve holdings and international finance. The IMF’s operations are conducted predominantly in dollars, serving as the currency most distressed sovereigns seek when they need liquidity and stability. In practical terms, many countries pool their dollar reserves and rely on IMF facilities as a backstop during times of stress. If the United States were to exit, the fund would lose not only a major contributor of capital but also the universal acceptance of the dollar within its own transactional framework. The result could be a temporary and potentially sustained bid for diversification away from the dollar in IMF-related activities, with a broad reallocation of financial influence across recipient countries and lenders.

A crucial conceptual pillar in this discussion is the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR), a unit of account designed as a basket of currencies. The current composition assigns the dollar the largest share, roughly 43%, followed by the euro at 29%, the yuan at 12%, the yen at 8%, and sterling at 7%. This distribution shapes how central banks consider their reserve diversification and how international liquidity is channeled. An abrupt U.S. withdrawal from the IMF would necessitate a realignment of SDR weights, with the yuan and the euro likely to gain weight at the expense of the dollar. Such a shift would not only elevate the international roles of the euro and the yuan but would also redefine the dollar’s influence in a framework where the SDR serves as a reference point for global reserves.

Ted Truman, a former Treasury under secretary for international affairs, has argued in a Financial Times op-ed that the scale of financial disentanglement involved in a U.S. exit would be enormous. He described the exit as a “significant own goal” and a move that would dramatically diminish the dollar’s global role. Truman notes that the IMF’s operations and many of the country’s financial commitments are dollar-denominated, and that member countries rely on the dollar for IMF transactions and for maintaining macroeconomic stability in distressed situations. If the United States were no longer a member, he asks, what other nation would want to hold assets in a currency that cannot be used in IMF transactions issued by a country that has abdicated its international financial responsibilities? This question underscores the potential for a systemic shift in how international financial cooperation is undertaken and funded.

The prospect of a reduced dollar footprint within the IMF would have far-reaching consequences. For one, the global reserve framework could experience a redistribution of shares and voting rights among the biggest remaining members, favoring those with alternative currency dominance. In particular, the yuan and the euro could assume larger roles, accelerating a broader trend away from the dollar in official reserve holdings. This reweighting would not only alter the power dynamics inside the IMF but could also influence the terms and availability of emergency liquidity facilities, the pricing of IMF-backed loans, and the overall cost of capital for countries relying on international financial assistance. The potential reshaping of reserve holdings would, in turn, reverberate through global capital markets, affecting everything from sovereign debt pricing to currency valuation and cross-border financing.

The broader implication is that a transition away from dollar dominance in IMF operations could re-anchor the world’s monetary system around a more diversified or multipolar reserve environment. While such a shift could, in theory, bring some benefits in terms of currency resilience and the dispersion of risk, it would also introduce new frictions and uncertainties. Markets would have to grapple with the reliability of a new, more complex mix of reserve currencies and the mechanics of international liquidity provisioning. The overarching question for policymakers and investors remains whether the potential gains in strategic autonomy and policy flexibility would outweigh the costs of significant financial disruption and the loss of a predictable, centralized mechanism for addressing global distress.

The exchange-rate dimension of a potential IMF exit is particularly salient. If the U.S. dollar’s role in the IMF were diminished or removed, the dollar’s relative value could experience substantial pressure. While policymakers who favor devaluation as a tool to enhance competitiveness might welcome a weaker dollar as a way to stimulate U.S. exports, the broader financial system would need to absorb a period of heightened volatility and possible disruption in short-term funding markets. The balance between achieving competitive gains and maintaining financial stability would be delicate, requiring careful calibration of policy tools, diplomatic coordination, and contingency planning to prevent abrupt market dislocations. In short, the IMF withdrawal question is not simply about a single institution; it is about the future structure of global reserve currency dynamics, the allocation of liquidity during crises, and the potential reshaping of the dollar’s role in international finance.

Market outlook: uncertainty, haven, and the path forward

From a market perspective, the possibility of an IMF exit has created a chorus of caution rather than outright alarm, reflecting a world watching carefully for policy signals that could alter the calculus of risk and return. The current mood among many investors is one of hedged optimism: they acknowledge the potential for long-term gains if a reconfigured monetary framework yields improved policy autonomy and better alignment with national economic objectives, but they fear the near-term disruption that would accompany such a fundamental reordering of the system. The tension between the desire for greater strategic latitude and the need for stable liquidity and predictable policy is at the heart of the debate surrounding IMF membership.

In this context, the question of whether the IMF question will be sidelined or pushed to the forefront remains central. Some analysts believe that the sheer scale of disentanglement required—spanning bilateral commitments, regional funding arrangements, and the re-prioritization of international lending—could push the issue off the immediate agenda, at least temporarily. Others insist that the issue cannot be ignored indefinitely, given the potential for dramatic shifts in reserve holdings, currency weights, and cross-border lending arrangements. The presence of this policy debate is itself a driver of risk premiums across asset classes, pushing investors to reassess currency exposures, duration risk, and the composition of international loan portfolios. As a result, markets are likely to remain sensitive to every new development in the IMF withdrawal discourse, including statements by policymakers, the scale of reform proposals, and progress in any parallel negotiations about alternative multilateral arrangements.

The broader context includes a recognized tension between the perceived benefits of a more autonomous national policy framework and the costs of destabilizing a system that has, for decades, underpinned global finance. A de-emphasized U.S. role in the IMF could prompt other countries to diversify away from dollar-denominated instruments and to seek alternative liquidity channels. The practical impact would depend on the speed and scale of any adjustments in the international financial architecture, as well as on how other major economies coordinate to fill any vacuum left by the United States. In any case, the potential consequences extend beyond a single institution or a narrow policy choice; they touch core questions about how the world funds crises, how reserve currencies are allocated, and how confidence in the dollar’s global leadership is maintained in a rapidly evolving geopolitical and economic landscape.

Market observers will also be watching for the downstream effects on asset prices, including U.S. equities, fixed income, and foreign exchange markets. A shift away from dollar-dominant operations in IMF-related activities could alter the relative attractiveness of dollar-denominated assets and influence hedging costs for cross-border investments. For euro-based and other non-dollar investors, the prospect of a broader reweighting in global reserves could translate into more pronounced currency moves and a re-pricing of risk premia associated with U.S. economic policy developments. While some investors may see a weaker dollar as a path to stronger competitiveness and export growth, others fear that the transition could introduce transitional volatility, liquidity constraints, and abrupt changes in the dynamic relationship between U.S. monetary policy and global risk appetite.

The ongoing discussions and the looming July deadline for the 180-day review in Washington keep the narrative alive in financial markets. The possibility that the IMF exit could be sidelined does not erase the underlying uncertainty; rather, it reframes it as a central, persistent risk factor that could influence policy decisions, investor behavior, and the behavior of allied central banks around the world. In the absence of a clear path forward, market participants must contend with a scenario where the United States reconsiders its multilateral commitments, potentially redefines its role in global finance, and relies on a set of policy instruments and alliances that may look substantially different from those of recent decades. The result is a period of heightened attention, measured positioning, and ongoing recalibration as all sides seek to balance strategic ambitions with the demands of a complex and interconnected financial system.

Implications for the dollar’s global standing and reserve framework

If the IMF exit gains traction, the most striking consequence would be a reconfiguration of global reserve holdings and the dollar’s central role in international finance. The dollar’s dominance in the IMF’s operations and its status as the principal reserve currency have underpinned decades of stable international lending and predictable policy transmission. A U.S. withdrawal would disrupt this entrenched arrangement, inviting a realignment of reserve portfolios and a consequent recalibration of central-bank incentives. In a world where the dollar is less central within the IMF, central banks might accelerate diversification into other currencies or assets, with a corresponding impact on liquidity and the pricing of dollar-denominated loans and securities.

Crucially, the shift would extend beyond reserve holdings to affect the governance and policy priorities of the IMF itself. Redistribution of shares and voting rights among the remaining major members could tilt the organization toward a somewhat more multipolar configuration, with the yuan and euro gaining traction at the expense of the dollar. The geopolitical and economic implications are substantial: a more diversified reserve framework could alter the susceptibility of global markets to U.S. policy shifts, potentially reducing the outsized influence of U.S. monetary policy on global liquidity conditions. At the same time, a rebalanced SDR basket would redefine the relative appeal of alternative reserve currencies, prompting central banks to adjust their holdings to reflect new weights and risk assessments.

The broader question for policy-makers is whether the potential shift in reserve composition would deliver net gains in stability and resilience or whether it would raise the risk of mispricing and fragmentation in international finance. Advocates of reform argue that reducing over-reliance on a single currency could diversify risk and improve resilience during crises. Critics worry that abrupt dislocations in reserve portfolios could generate unintended consequences, including sudden liquidity constraints for countries that rely on IMF financing and a rapid reevaluation of cross-border financial linkages. The challenge for decision-makers is to balance the potential long-term benefits of a more diversified and potentially more stable reserve framework with the short- to medium-term disruption that could accompany such a transition.

In any case, the prospect of an IMF exit places the dollar’s status at the center of a fundamental debate about the future architecture of global finance. Even if a withdrawal does not occur, the mere discussion intensifies the pressure on policymakers to articulate a coherent strategy for maintaining the dollar’s primacy while simultaneously ensuring that the international monetary system remains robust, flexible, and capable of providing liquidity to markets in distress. The stakes are high, not only for the United States but for the many economies that depend on the existing framework for stability and predictable financing. As analysts note, the world would not simply adjust overnight; the adjustment would unfold over years, requiring careful policy management, international cooperation, and a clear, credible plan for maintaining financial stability in a more complex and potentially multipolar reserve ecosystem.

The broader policy debate: reform, risk, and realism

The discussions surrounding the IMF, the World Bank, and the broader set of multilateral institutions reflect a clash between a long-standing belief in the benefits of international economic cooperation and a current desire for greater policy sovereignty. Supporters of a rebalanced approach argue that the United States should demand stronger reforms within these institutions to ensure they serve contemporary economic realities, improve governance, and reduce perceived inefficiencies. They contend that multilateral frameworks should align with the strategic priorities of the United States and its allies, including maintaining a stable environment for domestic economic growth and national security. Reform advocacy emphasizes accountability, efficiency, and a recalibrated distribution of influence that reflects present-day economic weights.

Opponents, however, warn of the risks of disengagement. They point to the IMF’s role as a lender of last resort and as a stabilizing mechanism that has historically helped mitigate crises and mitigate systemic risk. They argue that the costs of withdrawal could far outweigh any savings from reduced contributions or from re-prioritizing policy tools, particularly if alternative arrangements are not ready to fill the gap. The potential consequences for global liquidity, sovereign debt markets, and cross-border capital flows would be substantial, especially during times of stress when access to predictable, cooperative financing sources matters most. The debate thus centers on a pragmatic assessment of how best to safeguard U.S. economic interests while preserving a functioning and resilient international financial architecture.

The July review adds a practical dimension to these theoretical discussions. If the review concludes that withdrawal is not feasible or advisable, markets would gain clarity, reducing some of the policy-induced uncertainty. If, on the other hand, the review signals openness to drastic change, investors would need to prepare for a period of transition marked by policy experimentation, renegotiated financial commitments, and potentially new forms of international cooperation. The decision would likely reverberate through capital markets, affecting the pricing of risk, the flow of capital across borders, and the perceived credibility of U.S. commitments to financial stability. In this sense, the IMF debate encapsulates a broader tension between the pursuit of strategic autonomy and the practical realities of operating within a deeply interconnected economic system.

The ongoing narrative also features a broader set of signals about the United States’ willingness to engage with global institutions on a selective basis. While some actions, such as exiting climate and health agreements, may reflect a broader strategic posture, markets will be closely watching how any potential IMF exit would interact with other policy choices, including domestic reforms, fiscal policy, and regulatory adjustments. The question of whether the United States can maintain leadership in a highly interconnected, multipolar global economy while preserving autonomy over core policy decisions is at the heart of these discussions. The coming months will test the viability of competing visions for the United States’ role in global finance and will shape the environment in which the dollar operates as a key anchor of international liquidity.

Practical outlook and what to watch next

As the July deadline approaches for the 180-day review, several practical considerations will determine whether the IMF exit remains a theoretical possibility or a policy option with real traction. First, policymakers will assess the logistical, legal, and financial hurdles involved in disengaging from an institution with a long history of collaboration and crisis management. The process would likely require comprehensive negotiation with other IMF member countries, reconfiguration of existing bilateral arrangements, and careful planning to ensure that any transition protects the financial stability of vulnerable economies during a period of potential upheaval.

Second, the strategic calculus will evaluate the likely ramifications for the dollar’s global status. Observers will examine how shifts in reserve currency composition and the SDR basket would influence central-bank behavior, currency volatility, and the pricing of cross-border capital flows. Market participants will be sensitive to any official signaling about the likelihood of withdrawal, the timelines involved, and the conditions that would accompany any gradual or partial disengagement. The assessment will extend to the potential for collateral effects on U.S. borrowing costs, the cost of financing for emerging markets, and the overall level of global liquidity in times of stress.

Third, the debate will consider the potential for alternative arrangements to emerge that could provide comparable liquidity and stability without requiring a formal IMF departure. Countries might explore regional liquidity facilities, bilateral swap lines, or new multilateral schemes designed to preserve a stable global financial environment while offering greater policy flexibility to the United States and others. The feasibility, reliability, and credibility of such alternatives would be central to the assessment of any withdrawal plan and would influence market expectations about how quickly a major systemic shift could occur.

Finally, the broader political and economic context will shape the likelihood of a concrete policy move. The stance of Congress, the administration’s broader reform agenda, and the state of global macroeconomics will all contribute to whether the IMF exit remains a live policy option or a political and strategic red line. In this environment, investors and analysts will need to monitor a wide range of signals—ranging from cabinet-level policy statements to broader geopolitical developments—that could signal a shift in the United States’ approach to international finance and the role of the dollar on the world stage. The coming weeks and months will thus be critical for interpreting the direction of U.S. policy and the potential implications for global markets, reserve holdings, and the ongoing evolution of the international monetary order.

Conclusion

The current moment brings a convergence of political ambition, strategic recalibration, and market scrutiny around the United States’ role in the global financial system. The dollar’s recent weakness, the aggressive policy posture, and the explicit consideration of withdrawing from the IMF and the World Bank collide to form a high-stakes policy debate with broad implications for global reserve holdings, the SDR, and international liquidity. Proponents of reform argue for restoring control and sovereignty within a modernized framework, while critics warn that abrupt disengagement could introduce significant financial disruption and destabilize markets at a time when stability is paramount for global growth. The July review will be a focal point for assessing whether these risks and opportunities can be reconciled through reform, compromise, or a measured reorientation of U.S. participation in multilateral finance.

In the meantime, investors, policymakers, and analysts will continue to weigh the implications of Project 2025’s proposals, the evolving stance of international institutions, and the market’s evolving perception of the U.S. dollar’s place in a changing world. The path forward remains uncertain, and the choices made in Washington—alongside the reactions of global partners—will shape the architecture of international finance for years to come.