There will be much to chew over at the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) spring meetings this week.
Central bankers and finance ministers will descend on Washington for its latest bi-annual gathering, a place where politicians and academics converge, all of them trying to make sense of what’s going on in the global economy.
Everything and nothing has changed since they last met in October.
One man continues to dominate the agenda.
Six months ago, delegates were wondering whether Donald Trump could win the November election and what that might mean for tax and tariffs. How far would he push it? Would his policy match his rhetoric?
Image: Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters
This time round, expect iterations of the same questions. Will the US president risk plunging the world’s largest economy into recession?
Yes, he put on a bombastic display on his so-called “Liberation Day”, but will he now row back? Have the markets effectively checked him?
Behind the scenes, finance ministers from around the world will be practising their powers of persuasion, each jostling for meetings with their US counterparts to negotiate a reduction in the tariffs set by the Trump administration.
That includes our own chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who is still holding out hope for a trade deal with the US – although she is not alone in that.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:27
Could Trump make a deal with UK?
Are we heading for a recession?
The IMF’s economists have already made up their minds about Trump’s potential for damage.
Last week, they warned about the growing risks to financial stability after a period of turbulence in the financial markets, induced by Trump’s decision to ratchet up US protectionism to its highest level in a century.
By the middle of this week the organisation will publish its World Economic Outlook, in which it will downgrade global growth but stop short of predicting a full-blown recession.
Others are less optimistic.
Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF’s managing director, said last week: “Our new growth projections will include notable markdowns, but not recession. We will also see markups to the inflation forecasts for some countries.”
She acknowledged the world was undergoing a “reboot of the global trading system,” comparing trade tensions to “a pot that was bubbling for a long time and is now boiling over”.
She went on: “To a large extent, what we see is the result of an erosion of trust – trust in the international system, and trust between countries.”
Image: IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva. Pic: Reuters
Don’t poke the bear
It was a carefully calibrated response. Georgieva did not lay the blame at the US’s door and stopped short of calling on the Trump administration to stop or water down its aggressive tariffs policy.
That might have been a choice. To the frustration of politicians past and present, the IMF does not usually shy away from making its opinions known.
Last year it warned Jeremy Hunt against cutting taxes, and back in 2022 it openly criticised the Liz Truss government’s plans, warning tax cuts would fuel inflation and inequality.
Taking such a candid approach with Trump invites risks. His administration is already weighing up whether to withdraw from global institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank.
The US is the largest shareholder in both, and its departure could be devastating for two organisations that have been pillars of the world economic order since the end of the Second World War.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Here in the UK, Andrew Bailey has already raised concerns about the prospect of global fragmentation.
It is “very important that we don’t have a fragmentation of the world economy,” the Bank of England’s governor said.
“A big part of that is that we have support and engagement in the multilateral institutions, institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, that support the operation of the world economy. That’s really important.”
The Trump administration might take a different view when its review of intergovernmental organisations is complete.
That is the main tension running through this year’s spring meetings.
How much the IMF will say and how much we will have to read between the lines, remains to be seen.
But around the Belgrave Circle, something different was going on.
YouTube
This content is provided by YouTube, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable YouTube cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to YouTube cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow YouTube cookies for this session only.
Because this is the spot where Leicester‘s three parliamentary constituencies meet, and in 2015 they were all held by Labour MPs who saw their majorities increase.
It’s a different story now.
Stand in the middle of the roundabout and face towards Abbey Park and you’ll see the city’s only remaining Labour seat – that of cabinet minister Liz Kendall.
Image: Liz Kendall (left) and Jonathan Ashworth’s (right) constituencies used to meet at Belgrave Circle roundabout until Ashworth lost his seat. Pic: AP
Turn around and face the B&M Home Store, and you’ll find the only place the Conservatives picked up at the last election.
This freak occurrence happened after the Labour vote was split by two independent candidates – both of whom also happened to be former MPs for the city.
Labour saw its vote share cut in half here, and then some.
The Tory vote dropped as well, but not by enough to stop the party coming through the middle and taking the seat by four thousand votes.
But walk to the south of this roundabout and you’ll get to where an independent candidate went one step further.
Local optician Shockat Adam won this seat last year, defeating frontbencher Jonathan Ashworth in a campaign focused mainly on Gaza and events in the Middle East.
Image: Labour have begun painting themselves as the “bulwark” to Nigel Farage. Pic: PA
What happened on this roundabout last July is no one-off. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest these phenomena could be on the rise around the country.
Since the election, Labour’s vote share has plunged, and its base has fractured as support for insurgent parties on the right and left surges.
A lot of the focus from this has been on Reform UK and how Labour can stop Nigel Farage in traditional ‘red wall’ seats in the midlands and the north.
And yes, Labour is leaking support to Reform on the right. But what’s often not talked about is the greater number of votes its losing on the left.
Image: If the Greens do well, it could split the left wing vote, clearing the way for another party to win in a roundabout way
A rejuvenated Green Party under Zack Polanski is chasing Labour close in some polls, while Your Party is attempting to form a separate fighting force straddling ex-Corbynites, independent pro-Gaza candidates and those from the more hard-left tradition.
Come the next election, this could all have far-reaching consequences.
Sky News has ranked all 404 Labour seats according to how at risk they are to these new forces on the left. We created this ‘vulnerability index’ using factors like voting history, population and demographic data.
It shows several cabinet ministers in the top 25 most vulnerable, including Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood in fourth place, Sir Keir Starmer in thirteenth place and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy in twenty-third place.
All three of these Labour big beasts have seen their majorities cut in the last election by a Green candidate, an independent candidate or a mix of the two.
In Birmingham Ladywood, the total number of votes won by independent and green candidates exceed the number won by the Home Secretary.
That could trigger trouble, given the Greens and Your Party have indicated they may be open to the idea of local “progressive pacts”.
But in the neighbouring constituency of Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, the result last year shows how an altogether different result could materialise.
Here, Labour’s vote was again split by a left-wing insurgent candidate – this time from George Galloway’s Workers Party.
But the conservative vote was also cut in half by Reform.
If Nigel Farage can unite the right in places like this, he could come through the middle – in much the same way the Tories did in Leicester.
Image: Keir Starmer’s constituency ranks thirteenth on Sky’s vunerability index. David Lammy’s is twenty third.
So how can the government fight back?
Part of the answer, according to senior figures, is attempting to tell a more appealing story about the more overly left-wing chunks of their policy platform – such as the workers rights reforms and rental overhaul.
The hope is these stories may be given more of a hearing in 2026 when (or perhaps more accurately, if) a corner starts to be turned on big domestic priorities like the economy, the NHS and migration.
If that doesn’t happen, the real saving grace for Labour could be tactical voting.
The Greens and Your Party have made it clear that they will plough on with their campaigns against the government, even if it ultimately benefits Reform.
Image: If Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage split the right wing vote, it may allow Labour, the Liberal Democrats, or another party to come through the middle
What’s less clear is whether left-wingers across the country will.
If they are faced with the prospect of Nigel Farage in Downing Street, could they hold their nose and stick with Labour?
It all begs the question – who is their great enemy: the government or Reform?
Ministers are already trying to emphasise a binary choice when they talk about Labour being the one single “bulwark” to Nigel Farage.
Expect more attempts to mobilise this anti-Reform vote in the years ahead.
But that’s made more difficult by what happened around Leicester’s Belgrave Circle. The same political fracturing that’s dogged the right in years past now being replicated on the left.
Labour’s ability to pick up the electoral pieces may prove decisive in whether what took place on a shabby East Midlands roundabout in July 2024 is recreated across the country in a few years’ time.
A group of 18 bipartisan US House lawmakers is pushing the country’s tax agency to review its rules on crypto staking taxes before the start of 2026.
In a letter sent to Internal Revenue Service acting commissioner Scott Bessent on Friday, the lawmakers, led by Republican Mike Carey, asked for a review and update guidance on “burdensome” crypto staking tax laws.
“This letter is simply requesting fair tax treatment for digital assets and ending the double taxation of staking rewards is a big step in the right direction,” Carey said.
The letter calls for taxes from staking rewards to be applied at the time of sale, so that “stakers are taxed based on a correct statement of their actual economic gain.”
Mike Carey is leading lawmakers to change crypto staking tax rules. Source: Mike Carey
The lawmakers argued that the current laws, which see stakers taxed upon receiving rewards and again when selling them, are hindering participation in the staking market, when the laws should be designed to support a fundamental part of certain blockchains.
“Millions of Americans own tokens on these networks. Network security — and American leadership — requires those taxpayers to stake those tokens, but today the administrative burden and prospect of over taxation discourages that participation,” the lawmakers wrote.
The letter concludes by asking if there are any administrative barriers to updating the guidance before the end of the year, and asserts that they should be changed to support the current administration’s goal of “strengthening US leadership in digital asset innovation.”
Not the only push for changes to crypto tax rules
On Saturday, House representatives Max Miller and Steven Horsford also introduced a discussion draft aiming to ease the tax obligations on crypto users by exempting small stablecoin transactions from capital gains taxes and offering a deferral option for staking and mining rewards.
In terms of staking, the reps went a slightly different route by opting for a referral option as opposed to a complete change in the current laws.
The proposal outlines that taxpayers would be allowed to elect to defer income recognition on staking or mining rewards for up to five years, rather than being taxed immediately after receiving them.
The US Federal Reserve is requesting public input on its proposed “payment account,” dubbed a “skinny master account” which fintechs and crypto firms are drawn to as it would allow access to the central bank without needing the typical approvals.
“These new payment accounts would support innovation while keeping the payments system safe,” Fed Governor Christopher Waller said on Friday. In October, Waller recommended that the Fed explore the idea of implementing payment accounts to clear and settle certain transaction activities of eligible financial institutions.
Waller added the Fed is introducing the payment accounts feature to reflect the “rapid developments” in the payments industry that have led to “innovative approaches to banking” and new changes in business models.
“This tailoring could result in lower risk to the payment system and, as a result, requests for payment accounts could generally receive a streamlined review.”
Not all Fed officials agreed with the decision to seek public input, with Governor Michael Barr arguing that it could pose risks if safeguards against money laundering and terrorist financing are not clearly defined, especially for institutions the Fed does not directly supervise.
Several payment-focused crypto firms could be in the running to connect to the Fed’s banking rails, potentially strengthening the bridge between crypto and traditional banking. Among the largest US-based crypto payments companies are Circle, Coinbase, Kraken and Block, Inc.
Inclusion of crypto firms into the Fed’s banking system would mark a significant turnaround for the industry. Crypto companies last year claimed the Biden administration worked to deliberately cut them off from banking services to stifle the industry with what crypto backers have dubbed Operation Chokepoint 2.0.
Waller noted that the Fed has already been experimenting with blockchain-based payment technologies to modernize the US payment system.
Crypto wouldn’t get the same privileges
Payment platforms granted payment accounts, however, won’t receive the same privileges as big banks and Wall Street institutions that currently have master accounts.
Unlike master accounts, the proposed payment accounts would not earn interest, have access to Fed credit, and would be subject to balance caps, among other restrictions.
The comment period to give feedback on the payments account plan will close 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. Waller said last month that the payment account feature is expected to be operational in the fourth quarter of 2026.