The United States is set to begin its chairmanship of the Group of 20 (G-20) next year with a significant shift in approach, planning to reduce the number of meetings held among finance ministers and central bank governors, according to people familiar with the matter. The move is seen as part of a broader effort to streamline the forum’s operations and refocus discussions on core macroeconomic priorities.
Under current plans, the US will skip hosting the traditional G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting that is typically held in February. Instead, a White House official confirmed that a lower level meeting involving deputy finance ministers will take place during that period, maintaining continuity while reducing the burden on senior officials.
The G-20 framework usually involves dozens of working group meetings and multiple ministerial sessions throughout the year, culminating in an annual leaders’ summit. Finance ministers generally meet twice in the host country and twice on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank meetings. In addition, foreign and trade ministers often convene separately, contributing to an increasingly crowded multilateral calendar.
Fewer Meetings, Deeper Engagement
According to officials, the US intends to hold only one in-country meeting of G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors, scheduled for August. The goal, they say, is to create a more focused and efficient forum that allows for deeper, more substantive discussions rather than sprawling agendas spread across numerous sessions.
By tightening the schedule, the US hopes to return the G-20 to what it views as its original mandate: addressing macroeconomic stability, financial markets, and growth-oriented policies. Officials argue that in recent years, expanding agendas have diluted attention from these core economic issues.
Reflecting Trump’s Diplomatic Style
The decision also reflects President Donald Trump’s longstanding preference for bilateral engagement over large multilateral gatherings. Trump has frequently expressed skepticism toward international forums he views as inefficient or overly politicized.
This approach was evident in November, when Trump skipped the G-20 leaders’ summit in Johannesburg. Despite the absence of the leader of the world’s largest economy, the group issued a communiqué a development that some analysts said underscored the diminished influence the US currently assigns to the forum.
Similarly, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent did not attend G-20 finance meetings held in South Africa in February and July, although he did participate in sessions convened in Washington in April and October on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank meetings.
Shifting Priorities Within the G-20
Over the past three years, the G-20 has been chaired by South Africa, Brazil, and India host nations from the Global South that placed greater emphasis on issues such as debt restructuring, health financing, climate vulnerability, and inequality. While those topics resonated with many developing economies, they also reduced time available for traditional finance discussions centered on inflation, growth, and financial market stability.
In addition, geopolitical tensions have increasingly dominated G-20 meetings. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and renewed violence in the Middle East have forced finance chiefs to devote substantial time to political disputes, often preventing consensus. In several instances, the group failed to issue joint statements at the conclusion of two-day meetings due to sharply divergent national positions.
A Return to Core Economic Mandates
In its official statement upon assuming the G-20 presidency, the United States said it intends to “return the G-20 to its original mission of delivering economic growth and prosperity.” The administration identified reducing regulatory burdens and strengthening economic fundamentals as its top priorities during its tenure.
While some member countries have expressed concern that scaling back meetings could limit coordination at a time of heightened global uncertainty, US officials argue that fewer, more focused sessions could improve efficiency and restore the forum’s relevance.
As the US prepares to take the helm, its approach is likely to test whether a leaner G-20 structure can deliver meaningful outcomes or whether reduced engagement risks further diminishing the group’s influence in global economic governance.