Full Transcript of U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent's Speech and Q&A: It Will Take 2–3 Years for China and the U.S. to Reach a Trade Agreement
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Full Transcript of U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent's Speech and Q&A: It Will Take 2–3 Years for China and the U.S. to Reach a Trade Agreement
As potentially the only professional economic advisor in Trump's team, his statement is crucial.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled by: Peng You Quan, Tencent News Special Contributor
Since April, Trump's so-called reciprocal tariff policy has stirred massive upheaval. Global stock markets—especially U.S. equities—have experienced extreme volatility amid Trump’s erratic swings this month. Wall Street giants may never have suffered such massive losses in such a short period.
On April 23, U.S. time, Treasury Secretary Bessent delivered a keynote speech at the Institute of International Finance. As perhaps the only professional economic figure within the Trump team, his remarks carry significant weight.
In his speech, he stated that the U.S. and China have an opportunity to reach a grand agreement: the U.S. reshaping its trade balance through strengthened manufacturing, while China reduces its reliance on exports and moves more toward "domestic circulation." If China seriously pursues this path, the two nations could cooperate hand in hand.
Full transcript of the speech and Q&A session:
Host:
The audience here today is truly packed and enthusiastic. Now, it is my great honor to introduce the 79th U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Scott Bessent, for our keynote address.
Mr. Bessent was sworn into office on January 28, 2025, taking on a series of critical responsibilities—not only safeguarding national economic strength, promoting growth, and creating jobs, but also enhancing national security by combating various economic threats and protecting the financial system. With over forty years of experience in global investment management, Mr. Bessent has worked and engaged across more than sixty countries, maintaining close dialogues with world leaders and central bank governors. He is widely recognized as an expert in currencies and fixed income and has contributed to numerous economic and business journals.
Following his keynote, Mr. Bessent will engage in a conversation with Tim Adams. Let’s welcome the Treasury Secretary with warm applause!
Bessent:
Thank you for that generous introduction. It’s an honor to be here.
Near the end of World War II, Western leaders convened the era’s most brilliant economists with a vital mission: to establish a new financial system.
At a quiet resort in New Hampshire’s mountains, they laid the foundation for “Pax Americana.”
The architects of the Bretton Woods system understood that global economic development must rest upon international coordination and cooperation. To promote such cooperation, they created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
These twin institutions emerged from profound geopolitical and economic turmoil, with the fundamental goal of aligning national interests with the international order, thus bringing stability to an unstable world.
In short, their mission was—to restore and maintain balance.
This mission remains the very reason for the Bretton Woods system’s existence. Yet when we survey today’s international economic landscape, imbalance is nearly everywhere.
The good news is: things don’t have to stay this way. This morning, I want to lay out a blueprint for rebalancing the global financial system and revitalizing the international institutions originally charged with safeguarding it.
For most of my career, I observed financial policymaking from outside the system. Now, standing inside it, I look outward. I am eager to work with all of you to restore order to the international system.
To achieve this, we must first return the IMF and the World Bank to their founding missions.
The IMF and the World Bank have enduring value, but “mission creep” has taken them off course. We must advance key reforms to ensure the Bretton Woods institutions serve their true stakeholders—not the other way around.
To restore global financial equilibrium, the IMF and the World Bank must demonstrate clear, strong leadership. This morning, I’ll explain how they can fulfill this role and help build a safer, stronger, and more prosperous global economy.
I also take this opportunity to invite our international counterparts to join us in pursuing this goal.
Let me be clear on one point: “America First” does not mean “America alone.” Quite the contrary—it reflects our desire for deeper, more respectful cooperation with our trading partners.
“America First” is not retreat; it is our commitment to take greater responsibility and exercise stronger leadership within international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Through enhanced leadership, we aim to restore fairness to the international economic system.
Global Imbalances and Trade
The imbalances I’ve mentioned are especially evident in global trade—the very reason the United States has decided to act now to reshape the global trading landscape.
For decades, successive U.S. administrations operated under a false assumption: that our trade partners would voluntarily adopt policies conducive to global economic balance. The reality, however, is that America has long endured massive and persistent trade deficits under an unfair trading system.
Deliberate policy choices by other nations have hollowed out America’s manufacturing base, disrupted critical supply chains, and even threatened our national and economic security. President Trump has taken decisive action to address these imbalances and their adverse impacts on the American people.
This long-standing, severe imbalance is simply unsustainable. It is unsustainable for America—and in the long run, for other economies too.
I know “sustainability” is a fashionable term these days. But I’m not talking about climate change or carbon footprints. I mean economic and financial sustainability—the kind that genuinely raises living standards and ensures market stability. If international financial institutions are to fulfill their missions, they must focus exclusively on this form of sustainability.
Since President Trump announced his tariff policy, over a hundred countries have reached out to us, expressing interest in participating in the process of rebalancing global trade. These nations have responded positively and openly to the President’s vision of a fairer international system. We are engaging in constructive dialogue with them and look forward to further discussions with more countries.
China, in particular, needs to rebalance. Recent data show that China’s economy is moving further away from consumption-driven growth and increasingly relying on manufacturing. If current trends continue, China’s export-led manufacturing model will only deepen imbalances with its trading partners.
China’s current economic model effectively “exports” its domestic economic challenges. This is an unsustainable approach—not just harmful to China itself, but risky for the entire world.
China must change. China knows it must change. The world knows it. And we are willing to help, because we ourselves need rebalancing.
China could start by cutting excess export capacity and shifting support toward its domestic consumers and internal demand. Such a shift would help achieve the global rebalancing we urgently need.
Of course, trade is only one aspect of global economic imbalance. The world’s long-term dependence on U.S. demand has made the entire system increasingly unbalanced.
Some countries’ policies encourage excessive saving and suppress private-sector-led growth. Others artificially depress wages, similarly constraining expansion. These practices intensify global reliance on American demand and make the world economy more fragile than it should be.
In Europe, former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi has clearly identified multiple roots of economic stagnation and proposed a range of remedies. European nations should take these recommendations seriously.
Europe has now taken a belated yet necessary first step, which I welcome. These measures will create new sources of global demand and signify greater European responsibility in security matters.
I have always believed that global economic relationships should complement security partnerships.
Security allies are more likely to build economically compatible, mutually beneficial systems. If the United States continues to provide security guarantees and open markets, our allies must make stronger commitments to collective defense. Europe’s recent fiscal and defense spending actions exemplify the early success of the Trump administration’s policies.
American Leadership in the IMF and World Bank
The Trump administration and the U.S. Treasury are committed to preserving and expanding America’s leadership role in the global economic system. This is particularly evident in international financial institutions.
The IMF and the World Bank play pivotal roles in the international system. So long as they faithfully execute their core missions, the Trump administration will fully cooperate with them.
But under current conditions, both institutions fall short.
The two pillars of the Bretton Woods system must disengage from their current state of scattered agendas and diffuse objectives and refocus on their core missions. Mission creep has weakened their ability to fulfill essential functions.
Going forward, the Trump administration will leverage America’s influence and leadership within these institutions to drive them back to mission focus and effectiveness. We will also hold institutional management and staff accountable for delivering real results.
I hereby invite you all to join us in urging the IMF and the World Bank to refocus on their core mandates. This serves the shared interests of us all.
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
First, we must restore the IMF to what it was meant to be.
The IMF’s core mission is to promote international monetary cooperation, foster balanced growth in international trade, encourage economic development, and prevent harmful policies like competitive currency devaluations. These functions are vital to both the United States and the global economy.
Yet today, the IMF suffers severely from “mission drift.” An institution once steadfastly dedicated to global monetary cooperation and financial stability now devotes excessive time and resources to climate change, gender, and social issues.
These topics lie well beyond the IMF’s mandate, and this diversion undermines its capacity on core macroeconomic issues.
The IMF must become an institution that “relentlessly tells the truth”—not just to certain member countries. Unfortunately, today’s IMF chooses to “look the other way.” Its 2024 External Sector Report carried the headline “Imbalances Are Fading,” a display of “blind optimism” reflecting an institution more interested in preserving the status quo than asking hard questions.
In the United States, we clearly recognize that we must fix our own fiscal house. The previous administration produced the largest peacetime budget deficit in American history, and the current government is working hard to reverse that.
We welcome criticism—but we cannot accept the IMF’s silence toward those most deserving of scrutiny, particularly countries with persistent trade surpluses, such as China.
Pursuant to its core duties, the IMF must name countries that long pursue distortive global economic policies, manipulate currencies, and lack transparency—like China.
I also expect the IMF to sound the alarm on irresponsible lending by certain creditor nations. The IMF should proactively push official bilateral creditors to intervene early and coordinate with borrowing countries, thereby shortening the duration of debt distress.
The IMF must refocus its lending function on resolving balance-of-payments problems and ensuring loans remain temporary in nature.
When properly executed and accountability is clear, IMF lending represents one of its greatest contributions to the global economy: stepping in when markets fail, providing support in exchange for borrower reforms that correct imbalances and promote growth.
The changes driven by these reforms constitute one of the IMF’s most important contributions to building a strong, sustainable, and balanced global economy.
Argentina is a prime example. Earlier this month, I visited Argentina to express U.S. support for the IMF’s assistance in the country’s fiscal restructuring. Argentina deserves IMF support because it has made tangible progress toward meeting its fiscal benchmarks.
But not every country deserves the same treatment. The IMF must hold countries accountable for failing to meet reform commitments and say “no” firmly when necessary. The IMF has no obligation to lend to countries unwilling to reform.
The true measure of IMF success should be the ability of supported countries to achieve economic stability and growth—not the total volume of its loans.
World Bank
Like the IMF, the World Bank must redefine its role and return to its origins.
The World Bank Group aims to help developing countries grow their economies, reduce poverty, attract private investment, create private-sector jobs, and reduce dependency on foreign aid. It provides transparent, affordable long-term financing aligned with countries’ own development priorities.
Like the IMF, the World Bank offers extensive technical assistance to low-income countries, helping them achieve debt sustainability and resist coercive, opaque loan terms from other creditors.
These core functions complement the Trump administration’s efforts—both domestically and globally—to build a safer, stronger, more prosperous economic system.
But the reality is, the World Bank has also strayed from its original purpose.
It should no longer expect blank checks based on flashy, buzzword-laden campaigns, nor evade accountability with vague reform promises.
In returning to its mission, the World Bank must use its resources more efficiently and effectively, delivering tangible value to all member countries.
A key area for improving resource efficiency is expanding energy access.
Global business leaders consistently identify unreliable power supply as one of the top barriers to investment. The World Bank and African Development Bank’s joint “Mission 300” initiative—to bring reliable electricity to 300 million more Africans—is a commendable effort.
But the Bank must also better respond to countries’ actual energy priorities, focusing on technologies that genuinely support economic growth rather than chasing distorting climate finance targets.
We welcome the World Bank’s recent decision to lift its ban on nuclear energy support. This shift could revolutionize energy structures across emerging markets. We encourage the Bank to go further, ensuring equal access to all technologies capable of delivering affordable, stable baseload power.
The World Bank should remain technology-neutral and prioritize affordability in energy investments.
In most cases, this means investing in natural gas or other fossil-fuel-based energy projects; in others, it includes renewable energy projects equipped with storage or dispatch systems.
Human history teaches a simple truth: abundant energy enables economic prosperity.
Therefore, the Bank should advocate a “multi-pronged” approach to energy development. Such an approach will not only improve financing efficiency but also truly bring the Bank back to its core mission of promoting economic growth and poverty reduction.
Beyond expanding energy access, the World Bank can also use resources more effectively by implementing its “graduation policy.”
This policy aims to redirect more lending toward the poorest, lowest-credit-rated developing countries—where the Bank’s impact on poverty reduction and growth is greatest.
Yet in practice, the Bank still lends annually to countries that long ago met “graduation” criteria. Such continued lending lacks justification, diverts resources from higher-priority projects, stifles private capital development, and weakens incentives for these countries to move beyond Bank dependency toward private-sector-driven job creation.
Looking ahead, the Bank must set clear exit timelines for countries already meeting graduation standards.
Continuing to treat the world’s second-largest economy—China—as a “developing country” is absurd.
Certainly, China’s rise has been impressive, though partly at the expense of Western markets. But if China wishes to play a global economic role commensurate with its size, it must also complete its “graduation.”
We welcome that.
Additionally, the Bank should advance transparent procurement policies based on “best value,” helping countries move beyond the “lowest bid wins” model.
Relying solely on lowest-price bidding often encourages industries dependent on subsidies and market-distorting policies. It may suppress private enterprise, fuel corruption and collusion, and ultimately raise overall costs.
In contrast, a “best value” procurement approach is superior in both efficiency and development outcomes. Its rigorous enforcement will benefit the Bank and its shareholder nations alike.
On this issue, I issue the strongest possible statement regarding procurement for Ukraine reconstruction aid: any entity that has ever funded or supplied Russia’s war machine—regardless of who—shall be categorically ineligible to apply for funds from the Ukraine Reconstruction Facility. No exceptions.
Conclusion
Finally, I extend a sincere invitation to our allies: join us in rebalancing the international financial system and restoring the IMF and World Bank to their founding missions.
“America First” does not mean withdrawal—it means a more determined engagement in the international economic system, including a more active role in the IMF and World Bank.
A more sustainable international economic system will better serve the shared interests of the United States and all participating nations.
We look forward to working with you all toward this common goal.
Thank you!
Q&A Session:
Tim Adams:
Secretary, thank you for your excellent speech, and thank you all for being here today. That line—“America First doesn’t mean America alone”—was particularly powerful and probably relieved many in the room. Can we understand this to mean that as long as these international institutions return to their original missions and focus on core tasks, the U.S. will remain actively involved?
Bessent:
Absolutely. I made this clear during my confirmation hearing: the U.S. should actively participate in these multilateral institutions—not just participate, but lead and deliver results. Not just for ourselves, but truly for the world.
Tim Adams:
You mentioned rebuilding the global financial order. Twenty years ago, another senior Treasury official said the IMF “lacks capacity to address global imbalances,” but since then each Treasury secretary had different priorities. How will you do things differently? What specific ideas and approaches do you have?
Bessent:
The first thing is setting clear priorities. We need to reset the direction and metrics of these institutions, bringing them back to their original missions. I come from the private sector, where I’m used to measuring results and deadlines. These issues have been discussed for twenty or thirty years—some countries might think they can wait another hundred, but we don’t have that luxury.
Tim Adams:
On this front, C is unavoidable. You’re about to meet your Chinese counterparts. How can you get them to realize that talking isn’t enough—real action is needed?
Bessent:
There’s really no need for more lectures—they know it deep down, but lack external pressure and execution momentum. I first went to Japan in 1990, right after its bubble burst; in 2012 I met Shinzo Abe before his election, and he quickly launched “Abenomics.” A decade later, Japan’s economy significantly recovered. I believe my Chinese counterparts will come to see this too.
I’ve said before: we have an opportunity for a grand U.S.-China deal—America strengthening manufacturing to rebalance trade, China reducing export dependence and embracing “domestic circulation.” If China sincerely moves in this direction, we can cooperate. Of course, as you said, the core of all this is getting our own fiscal house in order. The U.S. currently runs a deficit of 6% of GDP—that’s not sustainable.
Tim Adams:
How important is fiscal adjustment within the global rebalancing framework? Could you elaborate?
Bessent:
It’s absolutely critical. Most of you here have formal economics training—you know trade deficits stem from three key factors: first, trade policy itself, including tariffs, non-tariff barriers, currency manipulation, and subsidies to labor and production inputs; second, budget deficits—the higher the deficit, the greater the “pull” for imported goods, and the higher the interest rates; third, the dollar exchange rate. The U.S. maintains a “strong dollar” policy, letting markets determine its value. A strong dollar isn’t about high quotes—it’s about earning capital inflows and market confidence through sound policies.
Our problem isn’t insufficient revenue—it’s excessive spending. I’ve advised President Trump to keep long-term deficits around 3% of GDP, matching 2% inflation or nominal growth, and achieving higher growth through sound policy.
Tim Adams:
You referenced again Rubin and Giscard d’Estaing’s 1960s concept of “exorbitant privilege.” Some see it as a burden, not a privilege. What’s your view on the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency? Will that status fade over time?
Bessent:
I believe the dollar will remain the world’s primary reserve currency in my lifetime. And frankly, I don’t think any country truly wants to replace it. The euro was once seen as a challenger, but its recent sharp appreciation has become a burden for export-dependent economies. Preserving the dollar’s status hinges crucially on restoring trust in international institutions.
Tim Adams:
You recently visited Europe, and many sense Europe is preparing for a “revival.” What’s your take? Is this a good moment for Europe to shoulder more global demand?
Bessent:
Indeed, a great opportunity—though not without challenges. Let me say this: we should thank President Trump for getting several European leaders to do what they failed to do for twenty-six years—convince Germany to increase fiscal spending and boost the European economy. This is both fiscal stimulus and a shift in defense burden-sharing. As I often say, economic security is national security, and national security is economic security. If Europe’s new plan works, I’ll fully support it. I recently spoke privately with Spain’s finance minister—he’s very confident about future EU defense spending, and I share that confidence.
Tim Adams:
Mr. Secretary, you’re advancing multiple priorities simultaneously: U.S.-China rebalancing, European opportunities, and U.S. domestic demand rebalancing—including the fiscal deficit. What specific expectations do you have for the IMF? What should Ms. Georgieva and her board do next?
Bessent:
In one word: refocus. The IMF has strayed far in recent years—too many side issues, too much clutter. It needs to “weed the garden” and recommit to core tasks like balance of payments and balanced growth, with clear goals and performance metrics.
Tim Adams:
Let’s talk about energy. You specifically highlighted nuclear power in your speech. The U.S. is now the world’s largest oil producer, pumping about 13 million barrels per day. Where else should we push harder? And how should the World Bank better support fossil fuels, nuclear, and other energy forms?
Bessent:
Adequate energy is the soul of economic growth. We must help countries design their own development pace: first “crawl,” then “walk,” then “run.” True sustainability starts with reliable baseload power. Some still cling to the fantasy that renewables alone can solve everything, but reality demands: pumps must turn, heaters must work, hospitals must never lose power. Even middle-income countries like South Africa face frequent blackouts. We must first stabilize baseload power, then gradually integrate renewables—not put renewables first and risk paralyzing industry.
Tim Adams:
Finally, let’s discuss financial intermediation. Capitalism without capital is just an empty “ism.” America’s capital markets and financial intermediaries are vital both domestically and globally. What’s your vision for future regulation? How should this sector develop?
Bessent:
Private credit has been a hot topic lately. I see it as a sign of diversification in America’s financial system, but parts of it operate outside regulation—partly because post-2008 crisis rules were too tight, squeezing traditional institutions. We plan to use the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), together with the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the FDIC, to build a more flexible, resilient regulatory framework that energizes compliant finance. One unique feature of the U.S. financial system is the large number of community banks and small banks—they provide 70% of agricultural loans, 40% of small business and mortgage loans nationwide. In contrast, most G7 countries are dominated by a few big banks. Once, Wall Street led the way; now it’s time for Main Street to share in the gains. Many small banks pulled back over the past decade due to regulatory pressure, and real economic activity stalled as a result. We are determined to fix this.
Tim Adams:
Thank you once again, everyone. The Treasury Department has long been the “voice of sober rationality,” and today you’ve heard exactly that—a voice of reason. Best wishes to all! Let’s give another round of applause to the Treasury Secretary!
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
