Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, a key figure in European defense policy, has weighed in on the gold debate, framing it as a matter of national security rather than mere finance. She argues that in an increasingly unstable world, strategic independence is paramount. For Strack-Zimmermann, having 37% of the nation’s most valuable asset stored across the Atlantic is a strategic vulnerability that can no longer be ignored.
The assets in question are part of Germany’s €450 billion gold reserve, the second-largest in the world. The New York portion, valued at €164 billion, has historically been seen as a hedge against Cold War threats. However, with the geopolitical map being redrawn, experts are questioning if the “safe haven” of the past has become the “hostage vault” of the future.
Economist Emanuel Mönch has added weight to this defense-centric argument. He notes that the physical possession of gold is the ultimate insurance policy for a nation. By repatriating the bars, Germany would eliminate the risk of foreign intervention in its monetary affairs, ensuring that its “anchor of stability” remains firmly under its own control.
The conversation has gained momentum as European leaders look for ways to decrease their reliance on the U.S. in various sectors. Financial experts are now discussing the gold repatriation as a logical parallel to efforts in defense and energy independence. The goal is to build a “Fortress Europe” mentality where vital resources are kept within reach.
On the other side of the debate, government spokespeople emphasize the logistical and diplomatic complexities of such a move. They argue that the current system provides global liquidity and that moving the gold could be seen as a sign of distrust that damages the transatlantic alliance. For now, the administration is prioritizing diplomacy over the physical relocation of the hoard.