The article is devoted to forecasting the ways of possible evolution of the International Monetary Fund due to the change in the position of the United States. The purpose of the article is a comparative analysis of the approaches used by the most influential American political and ideological groups involved in decision-making on the nature of the IMF's activities. This question has not been considered by modern historiography. The research of such Western economic theorists as M. Friedman, P. Volker, P. Krugman, etc. is chosen as the scientific and theoretical basis of the article. In the context of the American «industrial policy», the differences in the views of the leading political and ideological groups in the United States on the place of the fund in modern and future global processes are shown. Special attention is paid to the study of assessments and perceptions of American experts and politicians regarding the effectiveness of the IMF in the previous stages of globalization, the potential of using the fund to implement anti-Chinese policies, attract countries of the global South to their side, mitigate financial crises, stabilize the economic situation, and transition to a post-global economy. While agreeing with the inevitability of fragmentation, most groups of the American elite (except Trumpists) agree that the IMF should be preserved as the most important tool for global financial and economic stabilization of the transition period. On the issue of the IMF's mandate, all groups of Democrats have more or less supported the policy of its «expansion», including climate, health and social issues, while Republicans demand to focus on traditional functions. As for using the potential of the IMF in the anti-Chinese policy of the West, some of the participants in the discussion (neoliberals, conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans) believe that this can be done through a revision of quotas and a more equitable distribution of SDRs in favor of the countries of the South. Other groups (conservatives and neoconservatives) believe that such concessions could lead to the loss of U.S. control over the fund's decisions and resources. It is concluded that, given the relative balance of power in the framework of the discussion on the fate of the fund, one can hardly expect sharp movements towards reforming the IMF, even after D. Trump came to power.

This article was submitted 04.09.2024