Authored by Jp Cortez via The Mises Institute,
The bulk of the US gold reserves held in Fort Knox are made up of impure “non-standard” bars that don’t qualify for use in international settlements.
In practice, this means that most of America’s massive gold stockpile is illiquid and wouldn’t be readily accepted on the international market should the need arise:
“It’s a decrepit relic just like our monetary policy is. With respect to America’s gold stockpile, we hold ourselves to a lower standard than the rest of the world,” Money Metals CEO Stefan Gleason said.
The French central bank recently sold 129 tonnes of similar non-standard gold that was stored in New York and replaced it with higher-quality bars that will remain in France.
Notwithstanding the lack of any credible physical audits for decades, US gold reserves are reported to be 8,133.5 metric tons. That’s roughly 261.5 million troy ounces. About half of that (147.3 million ounces according to the US Mint) is stored at Fort Knox. The rest is spread out between the Denver Mint, the West Point Bullion Depository, and the Federal Reserve vault in New York.
America’s gold is valued at $42.22 per ounce by statute. The price does not fluctuate with market movements.
According to the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), gold bars must contain 350 to 430 fine troy ounces and have a minimum fineness of 995.0 parts per thousand to be acceptable for international settlements. In fact, the “good delivery” standards across the globe have been transitioning to 0.9999 purity.
Based on documents released during a 2011 House Committee on Financial Services Hearing, however, we find only around 17 percent of the gold bars held by the US government in Fort Knox meet any modern-day purity standards.
Here’s a breakdown of the purity of the gold bars held in Fort Knox:
Fineness between 899 and 901 – 64 percent
Fineness between 901.1 and 915.4 – 2 percent
Fineness between 915.5 and .917 – 17 percent
Fineness of 0.995 or higher – 17 percent
The average purity of US gold reserves is 916.7
Keep in mind, we’re operating on guesswork here because the US government’s gold holdings have not been audited since at least the 1970s.
In 1974, the government put together a publicity stunt in the name of an audit. The US Treasury opened just one of its 15 Fort Knox vault compartments to politicians and reporters to view the gold and confirm its existence.
That’s been called an audit. However, none of the bars that were passed around were ever matched to a serial number, assayed or tested for purity, or even verified as part of the United States’ holdings. As Sound Money Defense League Director Matthew Cortez pointed out, “It seems the made-for-TV spectacle in 1974 was more of a pep rally than any credible proof of what the amount of US gold purported to be in those vaults.”
Following the 1974 publicity stunt, the US Treasury says it conducted a multi-year process of opening and inventorying vault compartments and affixing new tamper-evident seals to the doors of each compartment upon completion. However, these so-called audits failed to meet basic transparency or accounting standards.
Some reports have since gone missing, and there is no record of comprehensive assaying, weighing, or transactional history available to the public.
Furthermore, there is evidence that seals on vault compartments have been broken over the years, bars have been moved for unknown reasons, and seals have been re-affixed without fresh auditing. Subsequent annual reviews of the schedules of compartment seals serve only to whitewash the prior discrepancies.
In sum, the US Treasury’s management of US gold reserves is replete with audit “no-nos” that would never pass muster at a responsibly run private depository.
An “audit the gold” bill introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) last year would not only require a comprehensive audit of US gold reserves, including, importantly, an accounting of any transactions involving said gold. It would also require the Treasury to refine all non-standard bars so that they meet modern requirements for international settlements—a process that could take several years.
Why So Much Non-Standard Gold?How did the US end up holding so many impaired gold bars that are illiquid on global markets?
It is the legacy of US policy that abandoned the gold standard, leaving us with the fiat system we live with today.
Needing to expand the money supply to support his spending plans, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to expropriate the public’s gold and add it to the national reserves. On April 5, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102, effectively making private gold ownership illegal.
FDR claimed the measure was to prevent “hoarding.” However, by creating an expansive definition of “hoarding,” the EO was designed to take virtually all gold coins and bars out of private hands and transfer them to the government.
Many people refer to Roosevelt’s scheme as “gold confiscation,” but that overstates what actually happened. The government didn’t go door-to-door taking people’s gold. However, the Federal Reserve still collected plenty of gold, especially gold held by institutions.
But many Americans also turned in their gold voluntarily as an act of obedience. Some likely did so because they trusted the government, others out of a sense of patriotism, and some probably turned their gold in out of fear.
Everyone was paid roughly $20 per ounce for their gold. But six months later, FDR formally devalued the dollar by some 40 percent when he declared gold worth $35 per ounce.
Much of the confiscated gold was in the form of coins that were generally 90 percent pure. At the time, private banks, along with the Federal Reserve, held a large number of coins. That was because Federal Reserve notes were redeemable for gold.
However, with private ownership of gold effectively banned, people would no longer be able to trade paper for metals, and there was no need to hold on to a bunch of coins. The government melted the coins down and formed them into bars, which now sit in Fort Knox vaults (as far as we know).
In a 1994 article published by The Journal of Economic Education, William C. Wood called the Fort Knox depository “an artifact of the gold standard days.”
The gold currently in Fort Knox came from the melting of Depression-era gold coins, from lend-lease arrangements in War II, and from government operations under the gold standard.
Wood specifically noted, “The gold resulting from melting of coinage has considerably lower quality than the ‘fine’ or ‘good delivery’ gold commonly used in international trade. The majority of the gold in Fort Knox is the lower-quality coin gold.”
In some ways, it makes sense that US gold reserves are impure and useless on the international market. It reflects the nature of the fiat system that replaced it.
Mises Institute Editor in Chief Ryan McMaken called the US gold reserves “a legacy of theft and lies,” pointing out that the gold reserve was never intended to be a “static, untouchable hoard of the US government.”
Tyler Durden Tue, 04/28/2026 - 20:55The Justice Department on Tuesday sued Cloudera Inc., accusing the enterprise data and artificial intelligence company of deliberately engineering a hiring process that excluded American workers from at least seven lucrative technology positions while the firm pursued permanent residency sponsorship for foreign workers on temporary visas.
In a 14-page complaint filed with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, the department’s Civil Rights Division alleges that Cloudera, from March 31, 2024, through at least January 28, 2025, instructed job candidates to submit applications to a dedicated email address, amerijobpostings@cloudera.com, that rejected all external messages with an automated bounce-back error. The company did not advertise the roles on its public careers website or accept applications through its standard portal, as it did for non-sponsorship positions.
Cloudera then attested to the Department of Labor that it could not locate any qualified U.S. workers for the roles, which paid between approximately $180,000 and $294,000 annually, according to the filing. The positions included a Product Manager role in Santa Clara, California, with a listed salary range of $170,186 to $190,000.
The case marks one of the most detailed enforcement actions under the Justice Department’s Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative, which was relaunched last year and has already produced 10 settlements targeting employers accused of discriminating against American workers in favor of temporary visa holders.
“Employers cannot use the PERM sponsorship process as a backdoor for discriminating against U.S. workers,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The Division will not hesitate to sue companies who intentionally deter U.S. workers from applying to American jobs.”
On X, she wrote that the department had sued Cloudera “for discriminating against U.S. workers in favor of foreign visa holders for high-paying tech jobs” and warning employers that they are “on notice.”
We just sued Cloudera for discriminating against U.S. workers in favor of foreign visa holders for high-paying tech jobs. This is a violation of the Immigration & Nationality Act, & @CivilRights will not hesitate to sue employers for discriminating against U.S. workers! You are…
- AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) April 28, 2026 A Technical Barrier With Regulatory ConsequencesThe complaint describes a recruitment system designed to satisfy the letter of permanent labor certification (PERM) rules while subverting their purpose. Under PERM, employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers for green cards must first demonstrate that no minimally qualified, willing, and available U.S. worker exists for the position through good-faith recruitment that mirrors normal hiring practices.
Cloudera posted the seven PERM-related jobs on a state job board, in newspapers, and in professional publications. But it deviated sharply from its standard process by refusing to list the positions on cloudera.com/careers and directing all applicants to the nonfunctional email address.
External candidates received a Google Groups error message stating that the group “may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group.” For at least nine months, Cloudera recorded no external applications through the address and made no effort to investigate or fix the issue. The company nevertheless certified in its PERM applications - under penalty of perjury - that it had conducted bona fide recruitment and found no qualified U.S. worker. No U.S. workers were hired for any of the seven positions during the relevant period.
One Worker’s Complaint Triggers InvestigationThe investigation began after a single U.S. worker - the charging party, whose name is redacted - attempted to apply and received the bounce-back message. On January 10, 2025, the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section opened a charge-based investigation. Two months later, it launched an independent probe and concluded there was reasonable cause to believe Cloudera had engaged in a pattern or practice of citizenship-status discrimination, violating Section 1324b of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The complaint brings three counts: deterring U.S. workers from applying, failing to consider applications that were submitted, and failing to hire qualified U.S. workers for positions the company had reserved for temporary visa holders.
Cloudera’s Dual Hiring TracksFor regular, non-PERM vacancies during the same period, Cloudera advertised positions on its external website and accepted applications through its standard careers portal. Only the PERM-track roles - those intended to be filled through sponsorship of workers already on temporary visas such as H-1B - were funneled through the defective email channel. The filing describes this as a “separate recruitment and hiring process” that treated U.S. workers less favorably based on citizenship status.
Because Cloudera employed more than three workers during the relevant period, they're subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the INA.
If the allegations are proven, Cloudera could face civil penalties for each individual discriminated against, back pay and interest for affected workers, and injunctive relief requiring changes to its recruitment practices.
Tyler Durden Tue, 04/28/2026 - 20:30Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on April 27 that past statements expressing what it labeled extremist views from immigrants applying for green cards and naturalization would warrant closer scrutiny.
The DHS statement was in response to a New York Times report over the weekend that, citing internal DHS training materials, said that under new guidance introduced by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions.
A spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which falls under the purview of DHS, said certain behaviors and statements “may raise serious concerns for USCIS personnel reviewing an applicant’s file, including espousing terrorist ideologies, expressing hatred for American values, advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States government, or providing material support to terrorist organizations,” adding that such actions “warrant closer scrutiny.”
The New York Times report claimed that the Trump administration includes criticizing the state of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor when applying for a green card or naturalization.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said that the administration’s policies had “nothing to do with free speech” and were meant to protect “American institutions, the safety of citizens, national security and the freedoms of the United States,” the paper reported.
The Epoch Times has contacted the White House and DHS for further comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
The New York Times report prompted criticism from lawmakers and rights groups, who have raised concerns regarding free speech and due process.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) labeled the alleged instructions to immigration officers as “outrageous” in an April 27 post on X.
“Trump plans to deny legal residency in the US based on whether he agrees with your speech,” Hollen wrote.
“Since when did it become ‘anti-American’ to criticize the actions of a foreign government? Who is he fighting for?”
Nonprofit civil liberties group Defending Rights & Dissent said the move was an “incredibly disturbing attack on free speech, with the government deciding who can enter the country based purely on their expression of political views,” in an April 27 post on X.
The Trump administration has adopted a harsher line on Palestinian advocacy movements it has deemed anti-Semitic by attempting to deport foreign protesters and threatening to freeze funding for universities where protests were held, since Trump retook the White House in 2024.
Last year, the Trump administration said it would vet immigration applications for “anti-Americanism” and anti-Semitism.
DHS stated on April 9, 2025, that USCIS would consider online expressions of anti-Semitic sentiment—particularly those endorsing violence, or terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—as grounds for denying immigration benefit requests.
The new policy, which went into effect immediately, also applies to physical harassment of Jewish individuals and will affect applicants for lawful permanent residency, foreign students, and individuals affiliated with educational institutions linked to anti-Semitic activity.
The policy directs USCIS officers to treat expressions of support for anti-Semitic violence or extremist ideologies as negative discretionary factors when evaluating applications.
Tyler Durden Tue, 04/28/2026 - 20:05