Bring our gold home!

Calls to bring Germany and Italy’s gold home are growing. Germany owns the second-largest gold reserves in the world at 3,352 tonnes. Italy ranks number three with 2,452 tonnes. Both countries utilise the New York Federal Reserve Bank, storing more than a third of their gold reserves in the bank’s Manhattan vaults.

According to a recent media report, policymakers in both countries are considering bringing their gold back to Europe due to President Donald Trump’s “erratic policymaking” and growing geopolitical unrest.

Gold repatriation represents a significant shift in how nations manage their wealth reserves. The process involves countries reclaiming their gold holdings from foreign vaults and returning them to domestic storage facilities. Far more than a simple logistical operation, gold repatriation has become a powerful symbol of national sovereignty and financial independence in today’s uncertain geopolitical landscape.

According to recent reports, approximately $245 billion worth of European gold reserves are currently stored in the United States, primarily in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s underground vault. This facility, which holds about 6,700 tonnes of gold, is the largest known depository of monetary gold in the world and has served as a trusted storage location since the post-World War II era.

New York was once considered a safe haven for storing European gold, especially during the Cold War era when the threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe loomed large. However, with the US aggressively employing economic pressure as a foreign policy tool, the wisdom of strong Italian and German gold reserves in New York no longer seems quite so obvious.

After all, what’s to stop the US from holding gold reserves hostage to further its own aims?

“Gold repatriation is about more than just moving metal — it’s about reclaiming financial sovereignty in an age where monetary policy has become increasingly politicised,” explains financial historian James Rickards in his analysis of the movement.

The timing of this movement coincides with growing concerns about global financial stability and the reliability of traditional monetary systems. With central banks around the world adding gold to their reserves at the fastest pace in decades, the physical location of these reserves has taken on new strategic importance.

The world has taken notice of the way the US (and other Western powers) weaponized the dollar after Russia invaded Ukraine. Some countries were already trying to limit exposure to the dollar to minimise the impact of US economic pressure before Russia invaded Ukraine, and de-dollarisation has accelerated since.

According to a report by the Atlantic Council, “In recent years, and especially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Group of Seven (G7)’s subsequent escalation in the use of financial sanctions, some countries have been signaling their intention to diversify away from dollars.”

The trade war and President Trump’s propensity to use tariffs as a billy club have raised concerns even higher.

Foreign leaders have also noted the way the US president has tried to bully Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell into cutting interest rates. They worry that further erosion of the central bank’s independence could further jeopardize their gold holdings in New York.

The German Taxpayer Federation recently sent a letter to the central bank, urging it to bring Germany’s gold home.

“Trump wants to control the Fed, which would also mean controlling the German gold reserves in the US. It’s our money; it should be brought back.”

The Taxpayers Association of Europe sent letters to Germany and Italy’s finance ministers, and to their central banks, urging them to reconsider their reliance on the Federal Reserve as a gold custodian.

“We are very concerned about Trump tampering with the Federal Reserve Bank’s independence. Our recommendation is to bring the [German and Italian] gold home to ensure European central banks have unlimited control over it at any given point in time.”

Calls to bring German gold home are coming from both sides of the political aisle. Former conservative MP Peter Gauweiler told the ‘Financial Times’ the Bundesbank “must not take any shortcuts” in efforts to safeguard the country’s gold.

“We need to address the question if storing the gold abroad has become more secure and stable over the past decade or not. The answer to this is self-evident, as geopolitical risk has made the world more insecure.”

The ‘Financial Times’ reports that “politicians and advocacy groups say storing bullion in the New York Federal Reserve exposes Europe to political risk.” This concern has grown significantly as the traditional post-war alliance structures have faced unprecedented strains.

The risk is not merely theoretical. Historical precedent exists for gold being caught in political crossfire — in 1979, following the Iranian Revolution, the United States froze Iran’s assets, including gold stored in New York. This action, while extraordinary, demonstrated that gold held in foreign jurisdictions remains vulnerable to political decisions.

Dr. Franz Heidenreich of the European Financial Institute notes: “When a nation’s gold reserves are stored abroad, they become potentially subject to the political whims of the host country. This creates a vulnerability that is increasingly difficult to justify in today’s geopolitical environment.”

Meanwhile, Fabio De Masi, a former left-wing populist MEP, has been quoted by FT that there are “strong arguments” for returning gold to Germany in these “turbulent times.”

There is also growing public pressure for gold repatriation in both countries.

Italian economic commentator Enrico Grazzini recently wrote: “Leaving 43 percent of Italy’s gold reserves in America under the unreliable Trump administration is very dangerous for the national interest.”

While these concerns may seem overwrought from a US point of view, it’s important to remember that the American perception doesn’t matter. If US actions have raised concerns abroad, policymakers need to take that into consideration, whether they think the worry is justified or not.

The grassroots campaign to bring German gold home predates the Trump administration. In 2013, the Bundesbank decided to store half its gold at home, moving 674 tonnes from France back to Germany.

Peter Boehringer was a key figure in that early push for gold repatriation. He told the ‘Financial Times’ it isn’t just about the Trump administration. He thinks a country’s gold should always be close at hand.

“Gold is an asset of last resort for central banks, and hence it needs to be stored without any third-party risk. It’s not just legal ownership but physical control over the gold that really matters.”

Officials in both Germany and Italy seem reluctant to rock the boat. A German investment analyst told the FT that a move to bring gold home would send a negative signal to the US.

“Bringing the gold back now with great fanfare would send a signal that relations with the US are deteriorating.”

In a statement, the Bundesbank said it “regularly evaluates the storage locations for its gold holdings” based on its 2013 guidelines, focusing on security and liquidity to “ensure that gold can be sold or exchanged into foreign currencies if needed.” It emphasised that the New York Fed would continue to serve as an important storage site.

“We have no doubt that the New York Fed is a trustworthy and reliable partner for the safekeeping of our gold reserves.”

Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, has supported gold repatriation in the past, but according to the FT, she’s been silent on the issue of late because “she wants to maintain a friendly relationship with Trump while averting the threat of a deepening trade war.”

Concerns about US control over gold aren’t limited to Germany and Italy. According to a World Gold Council survey in 2023, a “substantial share” of central banks expressed concern about potential sanctions after the US and other Western countries froze almost half of Russia’s $650 billion gold and forex reserves in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine. According to the WGC, 68 percent of the banks surveyed said they plan to keep their gold reserves within their country’s borders. This was up from 50 percent in 2020.

One central bank official has been quoted in a media report stating: “We did have it [gold] held in London… but now we’ve transferred it back to our country to hold as a safe haven asset and to keep it safe.”

Last year, India repatriated 100 tonnes of its gold.

There has been speculation that other countries have been moving gold and other assets out of the US in the wake of economic sanctions on Russia, but it’s been difficult to confirm because the Federal Reserve will not release information on the amount of gold in its vaults.

The gold repatriation trend started long before the West slapped sanctions on Russia. In 2019, Poland brought home 100 tonnes of gold. Hungary and Romania also repatriated some of their gold reserves around that same time. In the summer of 2017, Germany completed a project returning roughly half of its gold reserves back inside its borders. In 2015, Australia launched efforts to bring half of its reserves home. The Netherlands and Belgium have also initiated repatriation programmes.

Important to note is the fact that Central banks are aggressively accumulating gold as insurance against currency collapse, geopolitical instability, and potential monetary reset. This acquisition trend — exceeding 1,000 tonnes annually since 2010 — reflects diminishing confidence in fiat systems and preparation for a new framework potentially centred on gold-backed currencies or digital assets secured by precious metals.

Meanwhile, the dollar’s dominance could be at risk due to the gold repatriation. Also, many emerging economies have increasingly sought ways to conduct trade in non-dollar currencies, a process known as de-dollarization, especially given the fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The increasing use of financial sanctions and asset freezes as geopolitical tools has heightened concerns about the security of foreign-held assets. Recent years have seen numerous examples of countries having their foreign reserves frozen during diplomatic disputes.

Physical gold under direct national control offers a hedge against such financial weaponization, as it cannot be digitally frozen or blocked through financial systems; provides a non-political reserve asset with zero counterparty risk; remains outside the control of foreign governments or institutions; and can be mobilised during crises without requiring permission from foreign entities.

The same survey that showed increased interest in gold also revealed declining confidence in the US dollar as a reserve currency.

Though the US dollar is still king today, political instability and concerns about US fiscal policy are cited as key factors for its decline.

While this doesn’t signal an immediate collapse of the dollar-based system, it does indicate a structural shift toward a more diversified reserve approach, with gold playing an increasingly important role in the gold‐stock market guide.

Interestingly, between 2023 and 2025, over 2,000 tonnes of gold moved to the United States from Europe and London following calls for a US gold audit from high-profile figures, including Elon Musk, suggesting complex cross-currents in the gold market surge.

While not signaling an imminent return to a gold standard, the repatriation trend does indicate gold’s re-emerging importance in monetary affairs with the yellow metal increasingly being viewed as a critical non-political reserve asset.

It is also being positioned as a potential stabilising element in a fragmented monetary system, with its renewed focus representing a paradigm shift from the prevailing view in recent decades from merely a “barbarous relic” to limited modern monetary relevance.

Views expressed are personal