The gold discussion imho misses the point if it’s reduced to “Trump is unhinged.”
What we just saw at Davos with Greenland reveals the actual pattern: the theatrics are the tool, not the objective. The erratic behavior generates uncertainty, which then gets converted into bargaining leverage.
With Greenland, Trump just demonstrated how this works: maximum escalation (tariff threats against a NATO partner), then “backing down” in exchange for concessions (“total and permanent access”). The result is a structural shift - Europe becomes more dependent on US decisions in the Arctic, not less.
The second-order effect: coercive bargaining within the Western alliance becomes normalized. Once you’ve done this with Denmark, the threshold drops for similar tactics on other issues - tech regulation, China policy, financial infrastructure.
The third-order effect for German gold: the real question isn’t whether Trump is “crazy enough” to freeze gold reserves. The question is what negotiating leverage the mere possibility creates. Even if the probability is 5% - what concessions would Germany make to bring that risk down to 0%? That’s the actual logic: the more everyone believes he might do it, the more he can “sell” not doing it.
The economists aren’t arguing that (or if) confiscation is likely. They’re arguing that the risk is no longer negligible enough to ignore - and that the cost-benefit calculation of storing it there has fundamentally shifted.