Europe’s gold shift signals falling confidence in Trump’s America

European moves to relocate gold reserves from North America are a warning that confidence in the postwar Western order is eroding, says geopolitical strategist Abishur Prakash.

In an interview with Energi Media, Prakash argued that the immediate explanations for moving gold — geopolitical unrest and crisis preparation — point to a deeper problem: governments are no longer certain that assets, supplies or strategic goods held abroad will remain accessible during a crisis.

“The trust in the United States, trust that the U.S. political system, the U.S. economy, the U.S. society is going to remain stable, is starting to disappear,” he said.

Prakash connected that declining confidence to the deterioration in Canada-U.S. relations. He described the dispute as more than a trade conflict, calling it a “permanent fracturing” of the relationship that is changing how other U.S. allies assess North American stability.

That reassessment extends far beyond finance. Prakash said governments are reconsidering dependence on foreign energy, critical minerals, semiconductors, technology and security guarantees. The result, he argued, is the emergence of what he calls “fortress economies.”

“Governments now are convinced that they could lose access to all that in the blink of an eye,” Prakash said. “And they’re building now these fortress economies where whatever they need — resources, critical minerals, technology, semiconductors — is supplied from within the nation.”

The trend presents a particular challenge for Canada, whose economic model still relies heavily on exporting commodities into global markets. Hislop noted that Canadian assumptions about future demand for heavy crude oil and other resource exports may be less secure if major economies increasingly favour domestic production and strategic self-sufficiency.

Prakash said the same shift is visible in energy and trade. He pointed to governments reacting to vulnerable shipping chokepoints and supply disruptions by trying to reduce exposure to foreign suppliers. Hislop described that change as a move from energy security toward energy sovereignty: producing more electricity and strategic goods at home rather than accepting the risk that imports could be interrupted. For Canada, that raises a difficult question about whether simply finding new export markets will be enough in a world where buyers also want more domestic production.

Prakash said Canada must rethink what it offers the world. “I think Canada has to go beyond crude oil and natural gas and lumber,” he said, arguing that countries seeking greater sovereignty will increasingly want local production and technology rather than simple access to imported commodities.

The discussion turned to industrial policy and higher-value Canadian production. Hislop pointed to potential uses of bitumen beyond refinery feedstock, including carbon fibre and asphalt products. Prakash suggested Canada could go further by developing strategic services such as data embassies and by using government mandates or subsidies to create domestic demand for Canadian-made technologies.

His conclusion was stark: countries accustomed to decades of stability are now being forced to compete in a much harsher geopolitical environment. “We have to think big,” Prakash said. “We have to think radical because we have nothing to lose right now.”