A large portion of Germany’s gold reserves is not stored in Frankfurt, but in New York. Specifically, the Bundesbank currently holds 1,236 tons of gold deposited with the US Federal Reserve. This represents more than a third of Germany’s total gold holdings. Moreover, the gold has a market value of approximately €164 billion, which is why the question of its storage location is gaining renewed importance given the current global political climate and the need for independence over its disposal. The debate gained new momentum after Donald Trump’s unpredictable attempts to bring Greenland under US control heightened concerns in Europe about reliable agreements with Washington. (deutschlandfunk: 22.01.26)
Calls for Greater Independence
Several experts now view the concentration of gold reserves in the US critically, given the increasingly challenging global situation. For example, Mönch, the former head of research at the Bundesbank, stated that storing so much gold in the United States currently appears risky. Therefore, in his view, the Bundesbank should at least consider repatriating the gold reserves currently held in the US. He explicitly links this to the goal of strengthening Germany’s strategic independence. At the same time, this would send a signal to markets and partners that Germany intends to be less dependent on its US counterparts in key issues.
Support for relocating gold reserves is also coming from taxpayer organizations, where skepticism towards Washington is growing. The head of the European Taxpayers Association (TAE), Jäger, warned of political unpredictability in the US. This isn’t about day-to-day politics, but rather about predictable conditions for assets considered a last resort. Furthermore, proponents point out that gold not only has a price in times of crisis, but is also meant to inspire confidence. Those seeking to secure this confidence are therefore paying closer attention to independence regarding access, the legal framework, and potential points of leverage.
Trump, Greenland, and New Risk Assessments
The current debate is also fueled by concerns about geopolitical escalation, as conflicts can escalate more rapidly. In this context, Jäger called Donald Trump “unpredictable” and asked what might happen if provocations around Greenland continued. Nevertheless, the core issue remains sober: Anyone storing significant assets abroad must factor in political and legal risks. The mere possibility of sanctions, access restrictions, or tactical threats is enough to alter the risk assessment. Furthermore, the desire to maintain greater control over critical reserves has been growing in Europe for years.
Critics also fear a scenario in which a US president restricts access not physically, but administratively. Trump is considered impulsive, and therefore, for some, a blockade by executive order, emergency measure, or sanctions is no longer inconceivable. Even if the gold remains untouched in the vault, a delayed release in a crisis could coincide precisely with the moment when Germany needs rapid access.
This is less about theft than about power politics, because control is often established through rules and deadlines. If Washington delays transfers or imposes conditions, gold loses part of its function as an immediately available security reserve. This would be a strategic disadvantage, especially in a financial or alliance crisis, because trust also depends on the ability to act.
Greens warn against political maneuvering
Opponents of a rapid repatriation argue that New York is one of the most important trading centers for gold, meaning the reserves there remain operationally usable. This means that gold is not only stored in the US, but also more easily used as collateral or traded in case of emergency. They also point to established procedures, controls, and long-standing agreements between central banks. The question, therefore, is not only “Where is the gold?”, but also “How quickly can it be used in an emergency?”. It is precisely at this intersection that security logic and market logic clash.
Pressure for relocation is also coming from federal politics, as the debate has long since moved from expert circles to the Bundestag. The Greens’ finance policy spokesperson in the Bundestag, Beck, advocates for repatriation or reallocation. She describes the gold reserves as an important anchor of stability and trust, which is why their storage location should not become a subject of geopolitical power games. At the same time, her position underscores that gold reserves are not merely technical balance sheet items, but also have symbolic significance. Therefore, from this perspective, it is particularly important that Germany can dispose of its property at any time without friction.
Why the debate is resurfacing
This contrasts with the Bundesbank’s established stance, despite mounting political pressure. Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel declared last October that he rejects storing the gold reserves in Germany. Instead, the central bank traditionally relies on diversification across various locations to maintain operational flexibility. Furthermore, trust in established custodians, which have been firmly rooted in international central banking operations for decades, plays a significant role. Whether this assessment will shift under the new political climate remains the crucial open question.
Germany possesses the world’s second-largest gold reserves after the US, and this sheer scale makes any location decision a strategic one. Therefore, the discussion is unlikely to remain merely symbolic but will trigger concrete assessments, such as security concepts, transport logistics, and the costs of relocation. Moreover, it will depend on how the Bundesbank weighs access, tradability, and resilience against each other. One thing is clear, however: the more volatile international politics become, the more central the storage location becomes. And the greater the pressure becomes, the more likely it is that a new, robust justification for the current course will be found.