Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the legal authority over the US gold reserves at Fort Knox?
Executive summary
The United States Department of the Treasury has statutory custody and operational authority over the gold held in the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox; the U.S. Mint (within Treasury) manages the depository’s operations and the Treasury’s fiscal offices account for the metal on the government books [1] [2] [3]. Recent 2025 legislation proposals (H.R. 3795, the Gold Reserve Transparency Act) would direct the Comptroller General/GAO to perform an independent, comprehensive audit of all U.S. gold reserves — a shift advocates say would create a new legal oversight role if enacted [4] [5] [6].
1. Who legally “owns” and runs Fort Knox: Treasury’s chain of custody
Statutes and agency practice place the gold at Fort Knox under the custody and control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; the depository is operated as part of the Mint and its holdings are reflected on Treasury fiscal accounts [1] [2]. Historical policy moves — including transfers in the 1930s that moved gold from the Fed to Treasury custody — underpin that arrangement; contemporary reporting and agency descriptions continue to cite Treasury/Mint operational responsibility [7] [2].
2. Who audits and examines the vaults today: internal checks, inspector general, and assertions of accounting
Current public reporting notes that Treasury’s Office of Inspector General examines the sealed “deep storage” vaults annually and that Treasury maintains accounting for the gold on its books at a statutory book value [3] [2]. News outlets and Treasury officials have repeatedly affirmed that the gold is “present and accounted for,” but those assurances rest on internal auditing and limited public inspections rather than routine full third‑party assays [8] [9].
3. The legal question H.R. 3795 would change: GAO’s role and an independent assay
H.R. 3795 (the Gold Reserve Transparency Act of 2025), introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie, would require the Comptroller General — through the Government Accountability Office (GAO) — to conduct a full assay, inventory and audit of all U.S. gold reserves and to publicly report on findings within a set timeframe; supporters argue this would be the first such comprehensive audit in decades [6] [5] [4]. If passed, the bill would legally assign a new, specific auditing mandate to GAO rather than leave verification primarily to Treasury internal mechanisms [5] [4].
4. Competing perspectives: transparency advocates vs. Treasury and status‑quo defenders
Advocates for the Massie bill and public audits say decades without an independent, bar‑by‑bar assay leaves room for doubt and conspiratorial claims; they cite the lack of a full audit since the 1950s and point to high‑profile figures who have demanded openness [10] [4]. By contrast, Treasury officials and many analysts argue existing annual checks and accounting practices ensure the gold is recorded and secure; reporting notes multiple public statements that the gold is “accounted for,” though critics say those statements don’t equal an independent assay [8] [3].
5. Practical and legal limits on access: security, custodial law, and precedent
Fort Knox operates as a high‑security federal facility on land designated for bullion depository use; custody and access are tightly controlled under Treasury/Mint procedures and security protocols, and public or media access has historically been rare (1974 was a notable exception) [2] [9]. Any legal requirement for broader access or third‑party inspections would need to reconcile national security and custodial statutes with new audit mandates — the pending legislation explicitly tries to do so by directing the GAO’s role [5] [6].
6. What the reporting does not resolve — gaps and unanswered legal details
Available sources do not provide the full statutory text detailing every legal mechanism by which the Treasury would have to allow independent auditors into secure vault compartments, nor do they lay out how security, chain‑of‑custody, or disposition authorities would be implemented operationally if H.R. 3795 became law (not found in current reporting). Similarly, sources summarize proposed GAO authority but do not contain the final, enacted legal language or a binding court interpretation about how that authority would be balanced against security considerations [5] [4] [6].
7. Why this matters: public trust, markets, and possible policy outcomes
Control and audit authority over Fort Knox’s gold affect public trust and financial market perceptions; proponents say independent audits would bolster confidence and clear up speculation, while opponents say existing Treasury accounting suffices and that intrusive audits could raise security risks or logistical burdens [10] [8] [11]. If Congress enacts H.R. 3795 or similar legislation, the legal authority to compel a GAO‑led audit would be established and could set a new standard for routine, public verification of national reserves [5] [4].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided reporting and legislative summaries; the precise statutory language and any subsequent legal changes or Treasury policy responses beyond these sources are not included here [6] [5].