IMF to Fold Climate and Gender Units into Macro-Financial Division After U.S. Pressure
Move, reported by multiple outlets, follows criticism from U.S. officials that the lender had strayed beyond its core economic mandate
The International Monetary Fund will fold its climate and gender teams into a broader macro‑financial and structural policies division, people familiar with the matter said, a shift that officials and U.S. lawmakers have characterised as reining in so‑called "mission creep." The change, first reported by Bloomberg and described to The Post by sources, is expected to be formally approved at the IMF and World Bank fall meetings in mid‑October.
Two IMF units — the climate and development team and the development and inclusion and gender unit — will be moved into the Washington, D.C.‑based macro‑financial and structural policies division, the people said. The reorganisation follows public criticism from U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who in an April speech accused the IMF and the World Bank of prioritising issues such as climate change and gender over core macroeconomic work.
In his April remarks, Bessent said attention to those topics was "crowding out" the Fund's work on macroeconomic stability and fiscal policy, and warned of what he called mission creep. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva publicly pushed back after the remarks, saying the institution did not have the kind of climate policy staff critics described. "People think we have climate experts, we don't," she said.
Policy papers produced by IMF staff have in the past analysed issues such as net‑zero pathways and carbon taxation, and the Fund contributes data used in a global gender inequality index. Supporters of the IMF's broader work say those analyses inform macro‑financial stability and guide member countries on how environmental and social factors can affect economic outcomes. Critics have argued such work extends beyond the IMF's traditional focus on short‑term balance‑of‑payments support and macroeconomic stabilization.
The United States is the IMF's largest shareholder, holding just over a 17% stake, giving it substantial influence because major decisions typically require an 85% majority. That voting structure has made Washington's views particularly consequential in debates about the institution's scope and priorities.
The IMF traces its origins to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference and has long been described as a lender of last resort that provides financial assistance and policy advice to countries facing balance‑of‑payments crises. The Fund played a prominent role during the European sovereign debt crises after the 2008 global financial shock, providing financing packages to nations such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal while recommending fiscal consolidation and structural reforms.
Critics of past IMF programs have said conditionality tied to loans sometimes forced deep austerity measures with social and economic costs, a point that has fuelled debate over the Fund's remit and the balance between stabilization and social protection. Supporters counter that IMF programs are intended to restore macroeconomic stability and market confidence.
Reporting by The Post has also highlighted staff compensation and benefits at the IMF and its sister institution, the World Bank, drawing attention to pay scales and travel policies. Those reports noted differences between senior directors' pay and that of junior staff and described certain membership perks available to employees. The IMF's published recruitment materials indicate a range of compensation and retirement benefits for staff at different levels.
People familiar with the planned reorganisation said it was prompted by sustained U.S. pressure following public critiques, and that the restructured reporting lines are intended to integrate climate and gender work more directly with macro‑financial analysis. The move is procedural and will be finalised at the institution's governing meetings in October, the sources said.
The IMF and the U.S. Treasury did not immediately comment on the reported changes. The institutions typically discuss internal organisational matters at their annual and fall meetings, where member governments and executive directors review budgets, policies and strategic direction.