A renewed debate is unfolding in Europe over whether Germany and Italy should bring home a large share of their gold reserves currently stored in the United States. As geopolitical tensions rise and confidence in long-standing global institutions is tested, the issue of gold repatriation has shifted from a niche financial topic into a broader discussion about national sovereignty, economic security, and strategic independence.
Germany and Italy together hold some of the largest gold reserves in the world, second and third only to the United States. A significant portion of this bullion — collectively valued at roughly $245 billion at recent market prices — is stored in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. For decades, this arrangement symbolized trust, stability, and deep financial ties between Europe and the US. Now, that assumption is being questioned more openly.
Why Germany and Italy Store Gold in the US
The decision to store European gold reserves in New York dates back to the post-World War II financial order. Under the Bretton Woods system, the US dollar was directly linked to gold, and New York became a central hub for international gold trading. Keeping gold in the US made it easier for central banks to conduct transactions, access dollar liquidity, and participate in global markets.
Security was another major factor. During the Cold War, storing gold abroad — especially across the Atlantic — was seen as a safeguard in case of conflict in Europe. Over time, New York and London developed into the world’s most important gold trading centers, reinforcing the logic of holding reserves there.
However, the global environment that shaped those decisions has changed significantly.
Rising Geopolitical Risks and Financial Uncertainty
One of the key drivers behind the current push for gold repatriation is the perception of rising political and geopolitical risk. Increasing tensions between major powers, trade disputes, sanctions regimes, and a more fragmented global order have made countries more cautious about where they keep critical financial assets.
In particular, concerns have grown in parts of Europe about political unpredictability in the United States and the future direction of US economic policy. Some European politicians and economists argue that in times of global instability, physical control over gold reserves becomes more important than the convenience of storing them in international financial hubs.
Gold is often described as a central bank’s “asset of last resort.” Unlike foreign currency reserves or government bonds, gold carries no counterparty risk. But critics of overseas storage say that true security comes not just from legal ownership, but from having the gold within national borders and direct reach of domestic authorities.
Germany’s Gold Repatriation Debate
Germany holds more than 3,300 tonnes of gold, making it one of the world’s largest holders. Currently, a little over half of its reserves are stored in Frankfurt, while around 37% remain in New York and a smaller share in London.
Germany has already gone through a major gold repatriation effort in the past. Beginning in the early 2010s, the Bundesbank moved hundreds of tonnes of gold back to Frankfurt after public campaigns questioned why so much of the country’s wealth was stored abroad. That operation was completed successfully and increased domestic storage significantly.
Now, a new wave of voices — including economists, taxpayer groups, and politicians from across the political spectrum — are urging the Bundesbank to go further. They argue that shifting more gold to Germany would strengthen national resilience and reduce exposure to foreign political risk.
Opponents of rapid repatriation, however, warn that such a move could send the wrong diplomatic and market signals. They stress that the Federal Reserve remains a trusted institution and that keeping gold in New York ensures quick access to global markets in times of financial stress.
Italy’s Position on Its Gold Reserves
Italy, with around 2,450 tonnes of gold, faces similar questions. A large share of its reserves is also stored abroad, including in the United States. Over the years, Italian political figures have periodically called for the gold to be brought back to Rome, framing the issue as one of national sovereignty and financial independence.
However, Italy’s government has so far taken a cautious approach. While the idea of repatriation has political appeal domestically, leaders must also weigh the potential diplomatic consequences and market perceptions. Maintaining stable economic relations with the US remains a key priority.
A Global Trend Toward Domestic Gold Storage?
Germany and Italy are not alone in reassessing their gold storage strategies. Surveys of central banks suggest that more countries are considering increasing the share of gold held domestically. The motivations include concerns about sanctions, restricted access to foreign-held reserves during crises, and a broader desire for financial self-reliance.
This trend reflects a changing global financial landscape, where trust between nations is increasingly shaped by strategic competition rather than automatic alignment.
Gold Repatriation: Symbolism and Strategy
At its core, the debate over Germany and Italy repatriating gold from the US is about balancing symbolism and strategy. Bringing gold home could reassure citizens and signal stronger national control over critical assets. At the same time, it risks being interpreted as a loss of confidence in the United States, with potential diplomatic and financial repercussions.
For now, both Berlin and Rome appear to favor a cautious, gradual approach rather than dramatic moves. But as geopolitical uncertainty continues and the role of gold in central bank strategy evolves, the pressure to rethink where national wealth is stored is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
