Source: International Monetary Fund
May 22, 2025
SPEAKER: Ms. Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department, IMF
MS. KOZACK: Good morning, everyone and welcome to this IMF Press Briefing. It is wonderful to see you all today on this rainy Washington morning, especially those of you here in person and of course also those of you joining us online. My name is Julie Kozak. I’m the Director of Communications at the IMF. As usual, this press briefing will be embargoed until 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time in the United States. And as usual, I will start with a few announcements and then I’ll take your questions in person on WebEx and via the Press Center.
So first, our Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, and our First Deputy Managing Director, Gita Gopinath, are currently attending the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting taking place in Canada right now. Second, on May 29th through 30th, the Managing Director will travel to Dubrovnik, Croatia to attend a joint IMF Croatia National Bank Conference focused on promoting growth and resilience in Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe. The Managing Director will participate in the opening panel and will hold meetings with regional counterparts.
On June 2nd, the Managing Director will travel to Sofia, Bulgaria to attend the 30th Anniversary celebration of the National Trust Ecofund. During her visit, she will also hold several bilateral meetings with the Bulgarian authorities.
Our Deputy Managing Director, Nigel Clarke, will travel to Paraguay, Brazil, and the Netherlands next month. On June 6th, he will launch the IMF’s new regional training program for South America and Mexico, which will be hosted in Asuncion by the Central Bank of Paraguay. From there, he will travel to Brasilia to deliver a keynote speech on June 10th during the Annual Meeting of the Caribbean Development Bank. He will also then travel to the Netherlands on June 12th to 13th to participate in the 2025 Consultative Group to Assist the Poor Symposium and to meet with the Dutch authorities.
Our Deputy Managing Director, Kenji Okamura, will be in Japan from June 11th to 12th for the 10th Tokyo Fiscal Forum to discuss fiscal frameworks and GovTech in the Asia Pacific region.
And finally, on a kind of housekeeping or scheduling issue, the Article IV Consultation for the United States will be undertaken on a later timetable this year, with discussions to be held in November.
And with those rather extensive announcements, I will now open the floor to your questions. For those connecting virtually, please turn on both your camera and microphone when speaking. All right, let’s open up. Daniel.
QUESTIONER: Thanks for taking my question. I just wonder if the IMF has any reaction to the passage of last night in the House of Representatives of the One Big, Beautiful bill. And a related question, how concerned are you by the increase in yields on long-dated U.S. treasuries? What do you think it says about the market’s view of U.S. debt going into the future and sort of any possible spillovers for IMF borrowers as well? MS. KOZACK: On the first question, what I can say is we take note of the passing of the legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this morning. What we will do is we will look to assess a final bill once it has passed through the Senate and also once it’s been enacted. And, of course, we will have opportunities to share our assessment over time in the various products where we normally would convey our fulsome views.
On your second question, which was on the bond market. What I can say there is that we know that the U.S. government bonds are a safe haven asset, and the U.S. dollar, of course, plays a key role as the world’s reserve currency. The U.S. bond market plays a critical role, of course, in finance and in safe assets. And this is underpinned by the liquidity and depth of the U.S. market and also the sound institutions in the U.S. We don’t see any changes in those functions. And, of course, what we can also say is that although there has been some volatility in markets, market functioning, including in the U.S. Treasury market, has so far been orderly.
QUESTIONER: My question is about Ukraine. Two topics particularly. So, the first one, when is the next review of the Ukraine’s EFF is going to be completed, and what amount of money would be disbursed to Kyiv? And could you please outline the total sum that is remaining within the current program? And the second part, it’s about debt level. What is the IMF assessment of current Ukraine’s government debt level? Is it stable? Do you see any vulnerabilities and any risks for Ukraine? Thank you.
MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Ukraine? Does anyone online want to come in on Ukraine? Okay, I don’t see anyone.
What I can say on Ukraine is that just two days ago, our Staff team started policy discussions with the Ukrainian authorities on the eighth review under the eff. So, the team is on the ground now. The discussions are taking place in Kiev and the team will provide an update on the progress at the end of the mission.
In terms of the potential disbursement, I’m just looking here; that’s the seventh disbursement. We will come back to you on the size of the disbursement, but it should show in the Staff report for the Seventh Review what would be expected for the Eighth Review. And it would also show the remaining size of the program. But we’ll come back to you bilaterally with those exact answers.
And what I can then say on the debt side is at the time of the Seventh Review under the program, we assessed debt, Ukraine’s debt to be sustainable on a forward-looking basis and as with every review that the team of course, will update its assessment as part of the eighth review discussion. We’ll have more to say on the debt as the eighth review continues.
QUESTIONER: Just one more thing on Ukraine. Does it make sense for them to consider using the euro as a defense currency for their currency, given the shifting geopolitical sense and what we are seeing with the dollar? MS. KOZACK: So right now, under the program, Ukraine has an inflation targeting regime, and that is where what the program is focused on, our program with Ukraine. So, they have an inflation targeting regime. They are very much focused on ensuring the stability of that monetary policy regime that Ukraine has. And, of course, that involves a floating exchange rate. And I don’t have anything beyond that to say on the currency market.
QUESTIONER: The agreement with the IMF established a target for the Central Bank Reserve to meet by June. According to the technical projection, does the IMF believe Argentina will meet this target? And if it’s not met, is it possible that we will grant a waiver in the future?
MS. KOZACK: anything else on Argentina?
QUESTIONER: About Argentina, what is your assessment of the progress of the program agreed with Argentina more than a month after its announcement in last April?
QUESTIONER: The government is about to announce a measure to gain access to voluntarily, of course, but to the dollars that are “under the mattress”, as we call them, undeclared funds to probably meet these targets that Roman was asking about. I was wondering if this measure has been discussed with the IMF. And also, you mentioned Georgieva visiting Paraguay and Brazil, if you there’s any plan to visit Argentina as well?
QUESTIONER: President Milei is about to announce, you know, Minister Caputo, in a few minutes that there is a measure to use similar to attacks Amnesty. Is the IMF concerned that this could violate its regulations against illicit financial flows?
MS. KOZACK: So, with respect to Argentina, on April 11th, I think, as you know, our Executive Board approved a new four-year EFF arrangement for Argentina. It was for $20 billion. It contained an initial disbursement of $12 billion. And that the aim of that program is to support Argentina’s transition to the next phase of its stabilization program and reforms.
President Milei’s administration’s policies continued to deliver impressive results. These include the rollout of the new FX regime, which has been smooth, a decline in monthly inflation to 2.8 percent in April, another fiscal surplus in April, and reaching a cumulative fiscal surplus of 0.6 percent of GDP for the year, and efforts to continue to open up the economy. At the same time, the economy is now expanding, real wages are recovering, and poverty continues to fall in Argentina.
The Fund continues to support the authorities in their efforts to create a more stable and prosperous Argentina. Our close engagement continues, including in the context of the upcoming discussions for the First Review of the program. This First Review will allow us to assess progress and to consider policies to build on the strong momentum and to secure lasting stability and growth in Argentina. And in this regard, there is a shared recognition with the authorities about the importance of strengthening external buffers and securing a timely re-access to international capital markets.
What I can say on the question about the announcements on that — the question on the undeclared assets. All I can say right now is that we’re following developments very closely on this, and of course, the team will be ready to provide an assessment in due course.
On the second part of that question, I do want to also note, and this is included in our Staff report, that the authorities have committed to strengthening financial transparency and also to aligning Argentina’s AML CFT, the Anti-Money Laundering framework, with international standards, as well as to deregulating the economy to encourage its formalization. So, any new measures, including those that may be aimed at encouraging the use of undeclared assets, should be, of course, consistent with these important commitments.
And on your question about Paraguay and Brazil, I just want to clarify that it is our Deputy Managing Director, Nigel Clarke, who will be traveling to Brazil and Paraguay, not the Managing Director.
QUESTIONER: Two questions on Syria. With the U.S. and EU announcing the lifting of sanctions recently, how does this affect any sort of timeline with providing economic assistance? And secondly, the Managing Director has said that the Fund has to first define data. Can you just walk through what that entails?
MS. KOZACK: Can you just repeat what you said? The Managing Director has said?
QUESTIONER: The need to define data. Just sort of a similar question. I’m just wondering, following the World Bank statement last week about, you know, Syria now being eligible to borrow from the bank, what sort of discussions the Fund has had with the Syrian authorities since the end of the Spring Meetings and, you know, any update you can give us around possible discussions around an Article IV.
QUESTIONER: About the relationship and if there’s any missed planned virtual or on the ground?
MS. KOZACK: Let me step back and give a little bit of an overview on Syria. So, first, you know, we’re, of course, monitoring developments in Syria very closely. Our Staff are preparing to support the international community’s efforts to help with Syria’s economic rehabilitation as conditions allow. We have had useful discussions with the new Economic Team who took office in late March, including during the Spring Meetings. And, of course, you will perhaps have seen the press release regarding the roundtable that was held during the Spring Meetings. IMF Staff have already started to work to rebuild its understanding of the Syrian economy. We’ve been doing this through interactions with the authorities and also through coordination with other IFIs. And just to remind everyone, our last Article IV with Syria was in 2009. So, it’s been quite some time since we have had a substantive engagement with Syria. Syria will need significant assistance to rebuild its economic institutions. We stand ready to provide advice and targeted and well-prioritized technical assistance in our areas of expertise. I think this goes a little bit to your question on, like, what do we mean by defining data. I think what the Managing Director was really referring to there is since it has been such a long time since we have had a substantive engagement with Syria, the last Article IV, as I said, was in 2009. I think there, what she’s really referring to is the need to really work with the Syrian authorities to rebuild basic economic institutions, including the ability to produce economic statistics, right, so that we — so that we and the authorities and the international community of course, can conduct the necessary economic analysis so that we can best support the reconstruction and recovery efforts.
With respect to the lifting of sanctions, what I can say there is that, of course, the lifting of sanctions and the lifting of sanctions are a matter between member states of the IMF. What we can say in serious cases that the lifting of sanctions could support Syria’s efforts to overcome its economic challenges and help advance its reconstruction and economic development. Syria, of course, is an IMF member, and as we’ve just said, you know, we are, of course, engaged closely with the Syrians to explore how, within our mandate, we can best support them.
QUESTIONER: My question is on Russia. In what ways is the IMF monitoring Russia’s economy under the current sanctions and conflict conditions, and have regular Article IV Consultations or other surveillance activities with Russia resumed to track its economic developments?
MS. KOZACK: What I can say with respect to Russia is that we are, our Staff, are analyzing data and economic indicators that are reported by the Russian authorities. We are also looking at counterparty data that is provided to us by other countries, and this is particularly true for cross-border transactions, as well as data from third-party sources. So, this data collection using official and other sources does allow us to put together a picture of the Russian economy.
We did provide an assessment in the 2025 April WEO, the one that we just released about a month ago. In this WEO, we assess Russia’s growth at — we expect Russia to grow at 1.5 percent in 2025, 0.9 percent in 2026, and we expect inflation to come down to 8.2 percent in 2025 and 4.4 percent in 2026. And I don’t have a timetable for the Article IV at this time.
QUESTIONER: I’d like to ask about Deputy Management Director Okamura’s visits to Japan. So, my question is, what economic topics will be on the agenda during his stay? Could you tell me a bit more in detail?
MS. KOZACK: Deputy Managing Director Okamura will travel to Japan, as I said, from June 11th to 12th, and he will be attending the Tokyo Fiscal Forum. So, this will be the 10th Tokyo Fiscal Forum. It’s an annual conference that we co-host in Japan every year and the focus is on issues of fiscal policy. In this particular one, Deputy Managing Director Okamura will be discussing fiscal frameworks. It’s very important for all countries to have sound fiscal frameworks so they can implement sound fiscal policy. He will also be discussing GovTech not only in Japan but in the Asia Pacific region. And of course, GovTech is very important for countries because it’s a way of modernizing and making government both provision of services in some cases but also potentially collection of revenue more effective and more efficient. So, those will be the focus of his discussions in Tokyo.
QUESTIONER: I have a question on the recent bailout package by IMF to Pakistan. The Indian government has expressed a lot of displeasure with Pakistan planning to use this package to build — rebuild — areas that allegedly support cross-border terrorism. Does the IMF have any assessment of this? Secondly, I also have another question. Could you please provide information on the majority vote that was received in approving this bailout package for Pakistan on May 9th? If you can disclose the information.
MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Pakistan?
QUESTIONER: Just adding to that, do you have an update on the implications of the escalation of facilities in that border between Pakistan and India on both economies.
QUESTIONER: Thanks a lot. I guess the only spin I would put on is generally what safeguards does the IMF have that its funds won’t be used for military or in support of military actions, not only there but as a general matter. And I also, if you’re able to, there was some controversy about the termination of India’s Executive Director of the IMF, K.V. Subramanian. Do you have any insight into–there are reports there–what it was about but what do you say it’s about? Thanks a lot.
MS. KOZACK: With respect to the Indian Executive Director who had been at the Fund, all I can say on this is that the appointment of Executive Directors is a member for the — is a matter for the member country. It’s not a matter for the Fund, and it’s completely up to the country authorities to determine who represents them at the Fund.
With respect to Pakistan and the conflict with India, I want to start here by first expressing our regrets and sympathies for the loss of life and for the human toll from the recent conflict. We do hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Now, turning to some of the specific questions about the Board approval of Pakistan’s program, I’m going to step back a minute and provide a little bit of the chronology and timeframe. The IMF Executive Board approved Pakistan’s EFF program in September of 2024. And the First review at that time was planned for the first quarter of 2025. And consistent with that timeline, on March 25th of 2025, the IMF Staff and the Pakistani authorities reached a Staff-Level Agreement on the First Review for the EFF. That agreement, that Staff-Level Agreement, was then presented to our Executive Board, and our Executive Board completed the review on May 9th. As a result of the completion of that review, Pakistan received the disbursement at that time.
What I want to emphasize here is that it is part of a standard procedure under programs that our Executive Board conducts periodic reviews of lending programs to assess their progress. And they particularly look at whether the program is on track, whether the conditions under the program have been met, and whether any policy changes are needed to bring the program back on track. And in the case of Pakistan, our Board found that Pakistan had indeed met all of the targets. It had made progress on some of the reforms, and for that reason, the Board went ahead and approved the program.
With respect to the voting or the decision-making at our Board, we do not disclose that publicly. In general, Fund Board decisions are taken by consensus, and in this case, there was a sufficient consensus at the Board to allow us to move forward or for the Board to decide to move forward and complete Pakistan’s review.
And with respect to the question on safeguards, I do want to make three points here. The first is that IMF financing is provided to members for the purpose of resolving balance of payments problems.
In the case of Pakistan, and this is my second point, the EFF disbursements, all of the disbursements received under the EFF, are allocated to the reserves of the central bank. So, those disbursements are at the central bank, and under the program, those resources are not part of budget financing. They are not transferred to the government to support the budget.
And the third point is that the program provides additional safeguards through our conditionality. And these include, for example, targets on the accumulation of international reserves. It includes a zero target, meaning no lending from the central bank to the government. And the program also includes substantial structural conditionality around improving fiscal management. And these conditions are all available in the program documents if you wanted to do a deeper dive. And, of course, any deviation from the established program conditions would impact future reviews under the Pakistan program.
QUESTIONER: I have a question on Egypt. There is a mission in Egypt for the First Review of the EFF loan program. So, can you please update us on the ongoing discussions, especially since the Prime Minister of Egypt announced yesterday that the program could be concluded in 2027 rather than 2026?
MS. KOZACK: Any other questions on Egypt? I have a question from the Press Center on Egypt, which I will read aloud. The question is when will the Fifth Review currently underway with the Egyptian government be concluded, and when will the Executive Board approve this review? And how much money will Egypt receive once the review is approved?
So, here’s what I can share on Egypt. First, let me start here. So first, I just want to say that the Fund remains committed to supporting Egypt in building its economic resilience and fostering higher private sector-led growth. Egypt has made clear progress on its macroeconomic reform program, with notable improvements in inflation and foreign exchange reserves. For the past few weeks, IMF Staff has had productive discussions with the Egyptian authorities on economic performance and policies under the EFF. As Egypt’s macroeconomic stabilization is taking hold, efforts must now focus on accelerating and deepening reforms that will reduce the footprint of the state in the Egyptian economy, level the playing field, and improve the business environment. Discussions will continue between the IMF and the Egyptian authorities on the remaining policies and reforms that could support the completion of the Fifth Review.
QUESTIONER: My question is about Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s program is subject to IMF Board approval. The review is subject to IMF Board approval, but we still haven’t got any word on when that would be. Is there any delay in this? And is this delay attributed to the pending electricity adjustments, tariff adjustments, that the Sri Lankan government has committed to?
MS. KOZACK: So just stepping back for a minute. On April 25th, IMF Staff and the Sri Lankan authorities reached Staff-Level Agreement on the Fourth Review of Sri Lanka’s program under the EFF. And once the review is approved by our Executive Board, Sri Lanka will have access to about $344 million in financing. Completion of the review is subject to approval by the Executive Board, and we expect that Board meeting to take place in the coming weeks.
The precise timing of the Board meeting is contingent on two things. The first is implementation of prior actions, and the main prior actions are relating to restoring electricity, cost recovery pricing and ensuring proper function of the automatic electricity price adjustment mechanism. And the second contingency is completion of the Financing Assurances Review, which will focus on confirming multilateral partners, committed financing contributions to Sri Lanka and whether adequate progress has been made in debt restructuring. So, in a nutshell, completion of the review is subject to approval by the Executive Board. We expect the Board meeting to take place in the coming weeks. And it’s contingent on the two matters that I just mentioned.
QUESTIONER: Thank you for having my questions on Ecuador. Since the IMF is still completing the second review under the EFF program for Ecuador, do you think it’s going to be time to change the program, the goals, or maybe the amount of the program? Because Ecuador is now facing different challenges compared to 2024. The oil prices are falling, so that is going to affect the fiscal situation for Ecuador. And also, I would like to know if Ecuador is still looking for a new program under the RSF. And the last one, I would like to know if, do you think that Ecuador is going to need to make some important changes this year on oil subsidies and a tax reform? I think, as I said, Ecuador now is facing some important challenges in the fiscal situation, so do you think it’s going to be possible because of, you know, all the social protests and all that kind of stuff? Do you think it’s going to be possible to do that in Ecuador?
QUESTIONER: Is there a request, an official request, in place to modify the program? And if there is, of course, details of the new one, you can share.
MS. KOZACK: And then I have one question online from the Press Center regarding Ecuador. Is the sovereign negotiating new targets, given their fiscal position deteriorated compared to last year? Our understanding is that $410 million was not dispersed under the First Review.?
So let me share what I can on Ecuador. So, right now, representatives from the IMF, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank are in Quito this week to meet with the authorities and discuss the strengthening of financial and technical support to the country. As part of this tripartite visit, we have a new IMF Mission Chief who is participating, and she is also using that opportunity to have courtesy meetings with the authorities and to continue discussions and advance toward a Second Review under Ecuador’s EFF.
What else I can add, just as background, is that the Executive Board in December approved the First Review of Ecuador’s 48-month EFF. About $500 million was disbursed after the approval of that Frist Review. And at that time, the Executive Board also concluded the Article IV Consultation.
I can also say that the authorities have made excellent progress in the implementation of their economic program under the EFF. And regarding the precise timing of the Second Review, we will provide an update on the next steps in due course and when we’re able to do so.
QUESTIONER: Just a quick question on tariffs. I’m just wondering if the IMF has a response to the U.S.-China deal that was struck in Geneva earlier this month. You know, if the deal holds, I appreciate it’s a 90-day pause, but if the deal holds, how would you foresee that changing the Fund’s current economic forecast for the U.S. and China and for the global economy? Thanks.
MS. KOZACK: As you noted, earlier in May, China and the U.S. announced a 90-day rollback of most of the bilateral tariffs imposed since April 2nd, and they established a mechanism to discuss economic and trade relations. The two sides reduced their tariff from peak levels, leaving in place 10 percent additional tariffs. So, the additional tariffs before this agreement were 125 percent. Now, the additional tariff has agreed to be 10 percent, you know, for the 90 days. This is obviously a positive step for the world’s two largest economies.
What I can also add is that for the U.S., you may recall, during the Spring Meetings, we talked a lot about the overall effective tariff rate for the U.S. At that time, we assessed it at 25.5 percent. This announcement and the reduction in tariffs will bring the U.S. effective tariff rate down to a bit over 14 percent.
Now, with respect to the impact, what I can say is that the reduction in tariffs and the easing of tensions does provide some upside risk to our global growth forecast. We will be updating that global growth forecast as part of our July WEO. And so that will give us an opportunity to provide a full assessment. All of this said, of course, the outlook, the global outlook in general does remain one of high uncertainty. And so that uncertainty is still with us.
QUESTIONER: I have a broad question regarding the following – at the IMF World Bank Spring Meeting, the recent one, the Treasury Secretary Bessent called for the IMF and the World Bank to refocus on their core mission on macroeconomic stability and development. Did the IMF start any discussion on this topic with the U.S. administration? And my second question, do you foresee any changes to your lending programs to take into account the views of the Trump Administration regarding issues like climate change and international development? Thank you.
MS. KOZACK: What I can say on this is the U.S. is our largest shareholder, and we greatly value the voice of the United States. We have a constructive engagement with the U.S. authorities, and we very much appreciate Secretary Bessent’s reiteration of the United States’ commitment to the Fund and to our role. The IMF has a clearly defined mandate to support economic and financial stability globally. Our Management Team and our entire Staff are focused exactly on this mandate, helping our 191 members tackle their economic challenges and their balance of payments risks.
What I can also add is that at the most recent Spring Meetings, the ones we just had in April, our membership identified two areas where they’ve asked the IMF to deepen our work. And the first is on external imbalances, and the second is on our monitoring of the financial sector. So they’re looking for us to really deepen our work in these two areas.
As far as taking that work forward, we will continue working with our Executive Board on these areas, as well as to carry out some important policy reviews. And I think the Managing Director referred to these during the Spring Meetings. The first is the Comprehensive Surveillance Review, which will set out our surveillance priorities for the next five years. And the second is the review of program design and conditionality. And that will carefully consider how our lending can best help countries address low growth challenges and durably resolve their balance of payments weaknesses.
I have a slight update for you on Ukraine, which says — so the eighth — so if we look at the documents that were published at the time of the Seventh Review program, the one that was approved by the Executive Board a little while ago, based on that, the Eighth Review disbursement would be about $520 million. And, the discussions of the Eighth Review are ongoing, and any disbursement, as always, is subject to approval by our Executive Board.
And with that, I will bring this press briefing to a close. So first, let me thank you all for your participation today. As a reminder, the briefing is embargoed until 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time in the United States. As always, a transcript will be made available later on IMF.org. In case of any clarifications or additional queries, please do not hesitate to reach out to my colleagues at media@imf.org. This concludes our press briefing, and I wish everyone a wonderful day. I look forward to seeing you next time. Thanks very much.
* * * * *
IMF Communications Department
MEDIA RELATIONS
PRESS OFFICER: Meera Louis
Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org
@IMFSpokesperson