Germany keeps about one-third of its 3,352 tonnes of gold—the world’s second-largest reserves—at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a practice that dates back to the Cold War. The prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House and his confrontational stance toward allies and the Federal Reserve has renewed German concerns about the security of gold held in U.S. custody.
Recent developments have pushed the issue into the public eye. The German Taxpayers Federation has formally asked for repatriation of gold, pointing to Trump’s stated interest in influencing the Fed. European Parliament member Markus Ferber warned that Trump could come up with “creative ideas” regarding the holdings of foreign central banks. What used to be a fringe debate is now being discussed widely in mainstream German media and political circles.
The Bundesbank continues to describe the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as a “trustworthy partner,” emphasizing long-standing procedures and safeguards around central bank gold custody. Still, the matter is not straightforward. Germany previously repatriated 300 tonnes of gold between 2014 and 2017, a move that was framed around strengthening public confidence and diversifying storage.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has added a new strategic dimension. Officials and analysts argue that keeping a large portion of reserves abroad can be risky if geopolitical tensions escalate, making physical control and geographic distribution of bullion more politically sensitive. As a result, debates now focus on whether Germany should accelerate repatriation, increase the share held domestically, or diversify storage across several secure international locations to reduce concentration risk.
Proponents of repatriation stress sovereignty and immediate access in a crisis, arguing that having bullion on German soil would provide clearer control and reassure the public. Opponents point to operational costs, storage security requirements, and the benefits of established custody arrangements with major central banks, which include audited procedures and long experience handling central bank gold.
Beyond those practical considerations, the discussion reflects broader anxieties about global trust and the reliability of longstanding international institutions. Central bank reserve management often aims to balance liquidity, safety and return, and the recent debate highlights how political shifts can change that calculus. Germany’s finance officials will need to weigh logistical constraints and security against political pressures and public sentiment as they consider next steps.
For now, the Bundesbank’s position remains cautious: it underscores existing safeguards and points to past repatriation efforts as evidence that Germany can move bullion when it chooses. But with renewed scrutiny, growing public interest and evolving geopolitical risks, the question of where to store the nation’s gold is likely to remain a prominent topic in German economic and political discussions.