The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are making their case against a potential breakup with the US under President Donald Trump.

The sister institutions - major forces of US global influence since World War II - are bracing for impact from Trump’s radical makeover of international relations, and pitching the administration on the value they bring to its more transactional America First ethos.

That comes amid the risk of a potentially extreme step - US withdrawal from the institutions, as advocated by Project 2025, the Republican playbook whose authors have helped shape policy in Trump’s second term. Trump has ordered a review of the US relationship with international organizations, including the IMF and World Bank, which is due by early August.

The leaders of the IMF and World Bank have met with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the top official representing the US at the institutions, to explain how they benefit US interests, partly seeking to rebut criticism from within the Trump orbit, according to people familiar with the situation, who asked not to be identified as the discussions have been private.

The IMF’s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva and World Bank President Ajay Banga have made similar points to the administration in separate engagements. They argue that they can cover their own administrative costs and their structure magnifies the impact of US contributions. And they say that the US, as the biggest shareholder, already has the power to shape policies. Washington’s stake is about 16% for the IMF and about 17% for the bank’s oldest fund.

They’ve also stressed that their missions - global financial stability for the fund and development for the bank - benefit the US, including creating demand for exports and heading off financial or humanitarian crises.

“There’s a huge amount of uncertainty right now,” said Josh Lipsky, senior director of the Atlantic Council‘s GeoEconomics Center and former adviser to the IMF through most of Trump’s first term. During that time, he said, the administration recognized the value of the fund and engaged constructively. Now, “the range of outcomes is as wide as can possibly be,” he said.

The issue is likely to arise next month as the IMF and World Bank host global finance and central bank chiefs at the annual Spring Meetings in Washington starting April 21.

Georgieva “has had very constructive discussions with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other representatives of the US administration,” the IMF said in a response to questions. “We look forward to continued engagement with the US administration to promote growth and prosperity in the US and around the world.”

The World Bank said it’s updated the administration on its reforms, focus on job creation and efforts to spur private capital. “Like every shareholder, they want to see the value of their contributions - and we know that trust is earned through delivery,” it said in a statement.

For the fund and the bank, the nightmare scenario is that the US leaves them behind. The Project 2025 report, published by the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the institutions “espouse economic theories and policies that are inimical to American free market and limited government principles,” including higher taxes.

Washington’s best option, it says, is to withdraw rather than push for reforms.

“Conservatives and other pro-market folks have been trying to reform these institutions for decades,” said David Burton, a senior fellow in economic policy at the Heritage Foundation, and one of the authors of Project 2025. “They’re incapable of serious reforms and consistently hostile to US national interests.”

Banga has stressed the bank is focused on development, not charity or humanitarian work. He’s also highlighted his efforts to shift the bank toward funding nuclear power projects, as well as renewables and natural gas, as a source of low-carbon energy.

Both institutions have made climate change and its impacts a focus of their work, an issue that’s controversial for the Trump administration, which has promoted fossil fuels over renewables.

In the past, US Treasury secretaries have laid out the White House’s expectations or demands from the IMF and World Bank ahead of their spring or fall meetings, as a way to set the agenda.

In the meantime, the administration has yet to appoint a Treasury undersecretary of international affairs, who manages the relationship with the institutions, or named executive directors to their boards, meaning the US has been abstaining from votes.

A Treasury spokesman confirmed Bessent met with Georgieva and Banga, but declined to provide details.

Withdrawing from the IMF and World Bank would make the global economy less stable and slow development, said Brent Neiman, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and former Treasury official during the Biden administration.

“If the IMF as an institution didn’t yet exist, we’d want to create something just like it,” Neiman said.

BLOOMBERG