Criticism
Special interests-based criticism
The Bank has been criticized for favoring special interests. These interests have included corporations such as Boeing or Enron as well as foreign governments and nationals, such as a 1996 $120 million low-interest loan to the China National Nuclear Power Corporation (CNNP) supporting the export of US-made technology.
More recently the bank authorized $33.6 million in loans to Abengoa, a Spanish Green energy company on which former Governor Bill Richardson is a member of the board of directors. As of May 2014, Richardson was also listed as a member of the advisory committee of the Export–Import Bank.
Boeing
65% of loan guarantees over 2007 and 2008 went to companies purchasing Boeing aircraft. In 2012, the Bank's loan guarantees became even more skewed, with 82 percent of them going to Boeing customers.
However, EXIM supporters note that Boeing is the largest exporter in the United States by dollar value, and must be protected in their capacity as the only remaining comprehensive U.S. commercial aircraft manufacturer. Support of Boeing is seen as particularly critical as Comac, China's state-owned and heavily subsidized commercial aircraft manufacturer, aggressively seeks to leech market share from both Boeing and Airbus. Also important to note, Boeing is not the only US aircraft manufacturer previously supported by EXIM. During the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, EXIM supported other US aviation manufacturers such as the Douglas Aircraft Company, the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Company (Convair), and the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation.
The cost and effectiveness of the bank are controversial. While the EXIM projects will earn the U.S. government an average of $1.4 billion per year for the next 10 years, an alternative analysis from the Congressional Budget Office found that the program would lose about $2 billion during the same period, partly due to discrepancies in how credit risk is accounted for. Both conservative and liberal groups have been critical of the bank, and some continue to demand its termination.
Budget-based criticism
Critics also purport the existence of "unseen" costs created by the Export–Import Bank's subsidies, including artificially raising the price of new airplanes and potentially adding $2 billion to the deficit over the next decade.
Read the full text
Forbes contributor Doug Bandow wrote in 2014, "The agency piously claims not to provide subsidies since it charges fees and interest, but it exists only to offer business a better credit deal than is available in the marketplace. The Bank uses its ability to borrow at government rates to provide loans, loan guarantees, working capital guarantees, and loan insurance."
If the normal principles of economics or finance are applied, then it is seen by critics as unlikely that the bank has profited and most unlikely that it makes the annual profit that it has stated, because the bank's calculations of profit fail to make proper adjustment for risk. Best practice in finance and economics, as well as in banking, is to adjust the cost of capital or discount rate to reflect risk, or, equivalently, to use a fair-value estimate. On this basis the criticism is that "This simple approach—which is based on a method outlined in a National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Debbie Lucas of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—suggests that the EXIM's long-term loan guarantee program actually provides guarantees at a loss for taxpayers, not a profit. Moreover, this analysis reveals that the EXIM's loan guarantees are made at sufficiently generous terms that borrowers receive subsidies of about 1% of the amount borrowed. That translates into a $200 million cost for taxpayers on the $21 billion in loans that the bank will make in 2012."
Environment-based criticism
In February 2009, the EXIM settled a seven-year-long legal proceeding brought by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace together with the cities of Boulder, Arcata and Oakland. The plaintiffs said that the EXIM and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation provided financial assistance to oil and other fossil fuel projects without first evaluating the projects' climate change impacts. In 2005, the plaintiffs were granted legal standing to sue. This is considered a landmark decision because it is the first time that a federal court has specifically granted legal standing for a lawsuit exclusively challenging the federal government's failure to evaluate the impacts of its actions on the Earth's climate and U.S. citizens. In its settlement agreement, the EXIM agrees to evaluate the carbon dioxide emissions as part of its determination for qualification for a project. However, EXIM fossil fuel financing and associated greenhouse gas emissions grew swiftly after the settlement agreement, coinciding with Chairman Hochberg's tenure. Between 2009 and 2012, EXIM fossil fuel financing grew from $2.56 billion to nearly $10 billion.
Environmental groups in 2010 said that the EXIM was on a "fossil fuel binge", which "makes a mockery" of President Obama's stated commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. In December 2009, EXIM Directors approved $3 billion in financing for the ExxonMobil-led Papua New Guinea Liquid Gas project in December 2009. The project has reportedly caused violence and in April 2012, the Papua New Guinea government ordered in troops to quell opposition from villagers after a landslide linked to a quarry that had been used by the project killed an estimated 25 people.
In 2010, environmental groups criticized the EXIM Directors for approving $917 million worth of financing for the 3,960 megawatt coal-fired Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project in India after initially rejecting the project on climate change grounds. Environmental groups say that in reversing the decision the agency's Chairman, Fred Hochberg and Board of Directors "caved in" to political pressure from Wisconsin politicians. In 2011, several environmental groups protested at Export–Import Bank headquarters, unsuccessfully urging Chairman Hochberg and Board of Directors to reject $805 million in financing for the 4,800 megawatt Kusile coal-fired power plant in South Africa, which environmental groups say is the largest carbon emitting project in the agency's history, which will not alleviate poverty but will emit excessive local air pollution, which health experts say causes damage the respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems and deaths resulting from heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases. EXIM's 2011 announcement of support for Kusile asserted claims of environmental advancements including that "Kusile will be the first coal-fired power plant in South Africa to include sulfur dioxide scrubbers." However, in 2023 the South African energy utility Eskom proposed to circumvent the Kusile sulfur dioxide pollution control system, which the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air estimates could result in 680 deaths.
In December 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity, Pacific Environment, and Turtle Island Restoration Network filed a lawsuit against Chairman Hochberg and the EXIM for the agency's financing of Australia Pacific LNG's liquid natural gas projects inside the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The lawsuit alleged that EXIM financing for the projects violates U.S. environmental and cultural heritage laws. Their amended lawsuit included EXIM's loan for the Australia Pacific LNG project and a $1.8 billion loan for the Queensland Curtis which together totaled $4.8 billion. In March 2016, a California federal judge ruled against the environmentalists arguing that the EXIM financing represented only 10% of the project which is backed by ConocoPhillips, Origin Energy Ltd. and Sinopec and rejecting the loan would not stop the project. The environmentalists appealed the decision.
In 2019 Friends of the Earth (US) criticized EXIM President Kimberly A Reed for supporting the liquid natural gas (LNG) industry despite the lifecycle climate impacts of the fossil fuel, citing the U.S. government's Fourth National Climate Assessment finding that more frequent and extreme weather events are severely damaging the environment and the economy, while increasing harm to human health and loss of life. Friends of the Earth (US) also criticized EXIM for approving $5 billion in financing the Mozambique LNG project, citing the project's damage to the surrounding ecosystem (including to endangered species), displacement of local communities, and lack of economic benefits for local people.
In May, 2023 EXIM Chair Reta Jo Lewis, Vice Chair Judith Pryor and Director Spencer Bachus voted to approve nearly $100 million in Export-Import Bank financing for an oil refinery expansion project in Indonesia (EXIM Director Owen Herrnstadt abstained). Environmental groups criticize the approval as directly violating President Biden's commitments to end overseas fossil fuel financing, including at the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference. The approval was also repudiated by the White House National Security Council, which stated the "decision does not reflect administration policy."
Criticism of green energy-based financings
Conversely the EXIM has also faced scrutiny for pursuing green energy projects. The EXIM provided $10 million of loan guarantees in 2011 to Solyndra, a company that ultimately became bankrupt.
