Is Fort Knox empty? Trump and Musk reignite gold theft conspiracy as speculation explodes

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have revived a long-dormant conspiracy theory alleging that the U.S. gold reserves housed at Fort Knox may have been stolen or are otherwise unaccounted for. Since mid-February, the duo have referenced the claim publicly and repeatedly, prompting a renewed surge of speculation across social media and fringe financial communities. Though the claim lacks evidence and has been debunked for decades, its resurfacing now reflects a broader campaign to cast doubt on traditional U.S. institutions.

The rumour, which alleges without proof that the U.S. government is hiding the truth about its gold reserves, re-emerged after a post by the far-right financial blog Zero Hedge tagged Musk on X, formerly Twitter. That post, viewed more than three million times, suggested Musk should personally inspect Fort Knox to verify the 4,580 tons of U.S. gold supposedly stored there. Musk responded with curiosity, asking whether the site is reviewed annually. The exchange triggered a cascade of online discourse, peaking interest in “Fort Knox” on Google Trends to its highest level since 2004.

Trump soon joined in, teasing the possibility of an inspection visit to the heavily guarded depository. In a statement to reporters, Trump said: “We’re actually going to Fort Knox to see if the gold is there, because maybe somebody stole the gold, tons of gold.” Neither Trump nor Musk has made any concrete move toward visiting the facility, though Musk has continued to reference the idea in public forums, including a town hall in Wisconsin on March 30 and during an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

What is the Fort Knox gold conspiracy theory and where did it come from?

The theory that Fort Knox might be empty or has been secretly looted is not new. It has circulated intermittently since at least the 1970s, often championed by gold enthusiasts, libertarians, and anti-government commentators. In 1974, following claims from conspiracy theorist and author Peter Beter that unknown elites had emptied the vaults, the U.S. Mint took the unusual step of inviting members of Congress and journalists for a tour of the depository.

Philip Diehl, a former director of the U.S. Mint who later served as president of U.S. Money Reserve, noted that these suspicions resurface periodically during times of economic anxiety. According to Diehl, questioning the presence of gold taps directly into anxieties among certain voter segments, especially those sceptical of fiat currency and central banking. For Trump, who has long used gold symbolism in his branding and even sells chocolate bars wrapped in gold foil, the narrative plays well with his political base.

The idea gained traction again in 2011 when then-Representative Ron Paul of Texas, a longtime critic of the Federal Reserve, held a congressional hearing on the security of the U.S. gold reserves. That same year, Steven Mnuchin, then Trump’s Treasury Secretary, visited Fort Knox and publicly affirmed the presence of the gold. “The gold was there when I visited it. I hope nobody’s moved it. I’m sure they haven’t,” Mnuchin said in February this year.

How secure are the gold reserves at Fort Knox?

The Fort Knox facility, officially known as the U.S. Bullion Depository, sits adjacent to a U.S. Army base in Kentucky and was built in 1936 to house America’s gold. Today, it holds approximately 147.3 million ounces of gold, accounting for nearly half of the Treasury Department’s total reserves. That gold is currently valued at roughly $450 billion, based on prevailing market prices.

Despite online claims to the contrary, the gold is subject to regular audits. Eric Thorson, a former Inspector General of the Treasury Department, stated unequivocally that his team audited the facility annually and even recalled personally inspecting it in 2011. “There is absolutely zero doubt the gold is there,” Thorson said. “The security is unbelievable. Nobody’s going to go in there and take it.” He compared its security measures to those of nuclear weapons facilities.

Scott Bessent, Trump’s current Treasury Secretary, has also publicly affirmed the integrity of the gold reserves. Speaking to conservative podcast host Dan O’Donnell in February, Bessent said, “All the gold is present and accounted for.”

The U.S. Mint, which manages Fort Knox, has made it clear that the facility does not allow tours and is not open to the public, though the President, in theory, could override that policy. The last officially sanctioned visit was the 1974 media tour, designed specifically to quell public rumours.

Why do gold conspiracies persist in the digital age?

Experts suggest that the durability of Fort Knox conspiracy theories stems from their symbolic power. Aaron Klein, chair of economic studies at the Brookings Institution and former official in the Obama Treasury Department, argued that gold has come to represent more than just monetary value. “The gold has come to have a symbolic value of the faith in the U.S. government’s fundamental position,” Klein said. By questioning whether it is still there, Trump and Musk are undermining trust in the financial system.

Bret Schafer, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund who studies disinformation, added that these types of theories tend to re-emerge when amplified by influential figures. “It precedes the social media digital age, but now we’re in an environment where things can pop from the corners of ‘conspiracy land’ to policy action in a matter of hours, because all you have to do is land on Musk’s radar,” he said.

Musk, with over 218 million followers on X, now owns the platform and has often used it to engage in controversial debates, including spreading or amplifying conspiracy theories. His reach ensures that even obscure narratives can quickly enter mainstream discourse.

How are political motives and economic anxiety shaping this narrative?

This conspiracy resurgence comes at a time of heightened financial uncertainty, with markets experiencing sharp swings due to Trump’s proposed tariff hikes and broader geopolitical tensions involving Yemen, Ukraine, and Syria. Gold prices hit record highs in early April amid this volatility, before pulling back following Trump’s decision to temporarily pause new tariffs on several nations.

While there’s no evidence that either Trump or Musk holds significant personal gold investments, the rhetorical focus on Fort Knox could serve other strategic purposes. Analysts argue that it plays into a broader populist narrative that positions elites as corrupt and the public as misled. “What is probably happening here is taking any chance to make the American public feel that they’re being taken advantage of and that they’re a victim,” Thorson observed.

For Trump, who famously declared “I alone can fix it” during his 2016 campaign, casting doubt on government transparency—even in symbolic arenas like Fort Knox—may reinforce his image as a lone warrior against institutional rot. For Musk, the theory aligns with a pattern of online provocation and anti-establishment rhetoric.

What could come next in the Fort Knox gold saga?

While there has been no formal request from either Trump or Musk to visit Fort Knox, speculation continues. Former Congressman Ron Paul, who spent much of his career advocating for a return to the gold standard, expressed doubts that any inspection would actually happen. “They have other things to deal with… the gold they can forget about for a while,” Paul remarked. He also criticised past audits as insufficient, calling instead for metallurgical assays to confirm the gold bars’ composition.

The rumour’s longevity may be precisely due to its unresolved nature. Schafer suggests that those who benefit from such conspiracies have little incentive to see them disproven. “If the intent is to undermine the financial system, you don’t actually want anyone to go there and look,” he said.

Ultimately, the question of whether Fort Knox still holds America’s gold is not just about precious metals. It reflects deeper tensions about government trust, economic fragility, and the power of digital platforms to blur the line between political theatre and institutional policy.