Fears Grow Over German Gold Held in the US Under Trump’s Second Term

Concerns Resurface Over Foreign Vaults Amid Political Uncertainty

A renewed political debate is unfolding in Germany over the safety of its gold reserves stored abroad—particularly the 1,244 tonnes held deep beneath Manhattan in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. As former U.S. President Donald Trump assumes a second term in office, critics in Germany are voicing urgent concerns that the gold, worth more than €117 billion, may no longer be secure under an increasingly unpredictable U.S. administration.

This gold stockpile, equivalent to nearly 100,000 standard 12.5-kilogram bars, represents over a third of Germany’s total reserves. The remaining gold is split between Frankfurt, where about half is stored, and London, which holds 13% of the Bundesbank’s holdings. Calls to bring the gold back home are intensifying, driven by fears that Trump may interfere with the independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve and potentially leverage foreign-owned gold as a geopolitical tool.

Trump’s Influence Over the Fed Sparks Alarm

The discussion, once a topic limited to financial experts and nationalist circles, has entered the political mainstream. CSU Member of the European Parliament Markus Ferber warned publicly that Trump could devise “creative” strategies for dealing with foreign gold stored on U.S. soil. His warning reflects a broader anxiety in Berlin: if the U.S. executive were to exert control over the Federal Reserve, the Bundesbank’s reserves in New York could theoretically fall under direct or indirect U.S. jurisdiction.

Trump’s repeated verbal attacks on Fed Chair Jerome Powell and his history of undermining institutional independence add fuel to these concerns. While the Bundesbank currently maintains confidence in its American partners, critics point out that trust alone may not be a sufficient safeguard in the current geopolitical climate.

Bundesbank Defends Status Quo, Critics Demand Action

Despite the growing unease, the Bundesbank has so far resisted calls to change its storage strategy. President Joachim Nagel recently told reporters that he does not lose sleep over the issue and expressed full trust in the U.S. central bank. The institution argues that safety and market accessibility remain the primary criteria for selecting storage locations, and that New York continues to fulfill these requirements.

However, political and civil society voices continue to pressure the Bundesbank. The European Taxpayers Association and Germany’s Taxpayers Federation have sent formal letters to both the Finance Ministry and the Bundesbank urging a reassessment of current arrangements. “Bring our gold home,” urged Association President Michael Jäger, who emphasized the growing strategic risk of holding national wealth abroad in times of international tension.

Historical Roots of Foreign Storage Under Scrutiny

The presence of German gold abroad is not new. Following World War II, Germany had no gold reserves of its own. As the post-war economy grew, gold was accumulated as payment for trade surpluses, particularly in dollars, but the physical metal was never shipped to Germany. Instead, the U.S. Federal Reserve transferred ownership into accounts marked for the Bundesbank, leaving the bars in New York.

During the Cold War, storing gold in allied countries was seen as a security strategy. A Soviet advance into Western Europe could have put German reserves in Frankfurt at risk, making storage in the U.S. and the U.K. seem logical. But critics argue that this rationale no longer fits today’s strategic context, especially given the unpredictability of the current U.S. administration.

Past Repatriation Efforts Set a Precedent

This is not the first time concerns about the foreign storage of German gold have reached the national stage. Between 2013 and 2016, Germany repatriated 300 tonnes of gold—primarily from New York—to Frankfurt. The Bundesbank had initially resisted demands to audit or inspect the bars, citing costs and diplomatic sensitivities. However, under pressure, it organized the transport in discreet phases, using aircraft to deliver the bars, which were then tested for authenticity and stored in expanded vaults in Frankfurt.

Those efforts led to tighter domestic security and modifications to storage infrastructure, including the conversion of former data centers into vaults. Despite this experience, no additional large-scale relocations have taken place in recent years.

Private Investors Mirror Official Worries

The current wave of anxiety is not limited to institutions. Wealthy individuals and financial entities have also started moving their gold out of the U.S. in anticipation of possible economic or political instability. Initially, following Trump’s re-election, many investors sent gold into New York warehouses like COMEX to avoid tariffs and capitalize on favorable pricing. But by mid-2025, this trend began to reverse. Reports now suggest that high-net-worth individuals are increasingly moving their gold to jurisdictions considered more politically stable, such as Singapore.

This shift reflects broader uncertainty about the reliability of U.S. governance under Trump’s influence. In a notable case often cited in German media, Venezuela in 2019 was unable to access gold it had stored at the Bank of England due to concerns over the legitimacy of its leadership and the implications of international sanctions. For many Germans, the lesson is clear: foreign-stored gold can quickly become inaccessible under the wrong conditions.

Security Versus Sovereignty: The Strategic Dilemma

Proponents of continued storage abroad argue that maintaining a presence in financial centers like New York and London enhances liquidity and international trading flexibility. Moving the gold would not only be logistically complex and expensive but could also trigger diplomatic tensions. Furthermore, the Bundesbank maintains that gold stored in the U.S. can be quickly mobilized in global markets during crises, a key feature that domestic storage may not offer as effectively.

Yet the underlying question persists: is it still wise to rely on foreign institutions to safeguard national assets in an era marked by economic nationalism and shifting global alliances?