President Donald Trump moved Monday to clarify that gold will not face U.S. tariffs, overruling a recent Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determination that had briefly rattled the global precious metals market.

“Gold will not be Tariffed!” Trump declared in a post on Truth Social, a statement that immediately cooled market fears. Gold futures, which had surged to record highs the previous week, fell sharply after the announcement, closing 2.48% lower at $3,404.70 per ounce.

How the Tariff Scare Began

The turbulence began Friday when CBP ruled that one-kilogram and 100-ounce cast gold bars imported from Switzerland were subject to the 39% tariff Trump imposed on Swiss goods earlier this month. Those bars are widely used to settle contracts on the Commodity Exchange (COMEX), the leading U.S. futures market for gold, silver, and other precious metals.

The ruling was not limited to Switzerland. According to the Swiss Precious Metal Association (SPMA), it would have applied to any country exporting these gold bars to the U.S., making them subject to whatever tariff rate Washington had levied on the country of origin. The SPMA warned that this could “negatively impact the international flow of physical gold,” potentially complicating global trade in a commodity that underpins financial stability in multiple markets.

Trade Policy Background

Trump’s August 7 announcement of broad “reciprocal tariffs” marked one of the most sweeping expansions of U.S. trade duties in decades. The measures targeted dozens of trade partners, including allies, in what the administration described as an effort to ensure the U.S. only paid tariffs equivalent to those imposed on American exports. Switzerland, a major player in global precious metals refining, was hit with a 39% duty — a rate that CBP initially sought to extend to key gold bar imports.

Had the CBP ruling stood, it could have raised costs for U.S. futures traders, investment funds, and bullion dealers, with ripple effects in global pricing. Analysts warned that higher import costs would likely have been passed on to end buyers, including jewelry makers and institutional investors, and could have created arbitrage opportunities that distorted the market.

Trump’s Reversal and Market Impact

Trump has sought to stabilize a market that had been on edge since Friday by explicitly removing gold from the tariff list. His decision comes amid growing concerns from commodity traders and international refiners about the unintended consequences of applying blanket tariffs to globally traded, fungible commodities.

For Switzerland, the reversal spares a key export sector from a sharp disruption. The country is one of the world’s largest gold refiners, processing metal mined across multiple continents. Many of those refined bars ultimately pass through Swiss facilities before reaching the U.S. market.

Still, the episode has left some in the industry uneasy, with some noting that this kind of policy whiplash makes it very hard to plan for the future. This is because even the hint of tariffs on gold can trigger price spikes and affect delivery schedules.

While gold is now exempt, Trump’s tariff regime on other Swiss exports — and on goods from numerous other nations — remains in force. This means the broader trade tensions underpinning the CBP ruling are unresolved. This has triggered the hope that other globally traded commodities might be inadvertently caught in similar customs decisions, forcing further presidential interventions.

COMEX liquidity and futures market mechanics – If the tariffs hold

COMEX futures depend on a seamless pipeline between paper markets and physical metal. If import tariffs on standard cast bars had stuck, the immediate effect would be to raise the landed cost of physical bullion used to meet delivery obligations. That would likely have produced three near-term outcomes.

First, delivery volumes could shrink. Commercial traders who arbitrage between London/Zurich refined bars and COMEX futures might pause shipments rather than absorb a sudden duty, reducing the pool of physical available to satisfy futures delivery notices and narrowing the link between futures and spot. That weakens liquidity in the front months and can widen bid-ask spreads as longs scramble to secure metal or roll contracts.

Second, margin and financing pressures would increase. Brokers and clearing members would treat the elevated cost and delivery risk as additional tail risk, prompting higher margin requirements on gold futures. Higher margins make leveraged speculative positions more expensive and can depress futures open interest and turnover, at least temporarily.

Third, price dynamics across the curve would change. A tariff that raises physical delivery costs is pro-inflationary for spot relative to nearby futures; the market shifts toward a stronger contango (where spot exceeds near futures after adjusting for funding) or unpredictable swings if delivery uncertainty spikes. Volatility would rise as hedge portfolios and producers reprice inventories and forward sales.

Implications for physically backed ETFs (GLD, IAU, others)

ETFs that back shares with allocated physical gold rely on an efficient market to create and redeem shares via authorized participants who move bullion into or out of vaults. A tariff on standard cast bars would have raised the cost of bringing bullion into U.S. vaults, thereby creating a wedge between ETF NAV and the tradable share price.

Authorized participants would face higher transaction and customs costs to deliver metal to funds. That can produce transient premiums on ETF shares (creation becomes more expensive) or discounts (redemptions are deterred), increasing tracking error versus spot. In stressed scenarios, some funds might temporarily halt creations/redemptions for operational reasons, which itself would amplify secondary-market dislocations.

Large ETFs could also face increased storage and logistics frictions. If Swiss-refined bars were deterred, funds would need to source alternative Good-Delivery bars and potentially reconfigure custody arrangements — all of which lengthen settlement times and increase operational costs, which ultimately flow through as slightly wider expense ratios or, in severe episodes, reduced liquidity in ETF secondary markets.

Central bank purchases and reserve management

Central banks acquire metal for reserves using a global network of refineries and authorized sellers — Switzerland is a central node in that network. Tariffs on Swiss-cast bars create frictions for those purchases in two ways.

Operationally, central banks that routinely settle via Zurich could face higher landed costs or prefer to reroute purchases through alternative refining hubs. That might temporarily reduce the volume of gold flowing into U.S. custody or delay deliveries into specific jurisdictions, affecting short-term reserve allocation plans.

Strategically, central banks could accelerate diversification of sourcing and storage locations. Countries might shift purchases to local suppliers, to third-party refiners not subject to the tariff, or increase direct shipments to vaults outside the U.S. That reshuffles patterns of custody and could, over time, reduce the relative share of U.S.-held bullion in international reserves — a geopolitical as well as market effect.

Secondary consequences and market behavior

Beyond those three pillars, several knock-on effects would be likely. Jewelry and industrial users could face higher input costs if tariffs feed into broader spot price rises. Dealers would expand reliance on leased metal, swaps, and OTC forwards to bridge physical shortages, possibly raising counterparty and basis risk.

Market participants would seek arbitrage, creating cross-border flows where duties are lowest, but those flows bring compliance and KYC risks, increasing regulatory scrutiny. Smuggling and misclassification concerns would attract enforcement attention and further disrupt legal supply channels.

Elon Musk has escalated his long-running feud with Apple, accusing the tech giant of deliberately manipulating its App Store rankings to disadvantage his artificial intelligence ventures.

The billionaire entrepreneur said on Monday night that his AI company, xAI, would “take immediate legal action” against Apple for allegedly sidelining both the X social platform and its Grok chatbot in favor of rival AI apps.

In a series of posts on X, Musk accused Apple of “playing politics” by refusing to list either X or Grok in the App Store’s “Must Have” recommendations, despite what he claimed were their global popularity.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk wrote. He followed with a pointed challenge: “Why do you refuse to put either X or Grok in your ‘Must Have’ section when X is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps?”

Musk provided no evidence to substantiate his accusations, and it remains unclear whether any lawsuit has actually been filed. However, in response to a report about his legal threats, Musk doubled down: “Unfortunately, what choice do we have? Apple didn’t just put their thumb on the scale, they put their whole body!”

As of Tuesday, Apple’s U.S. App Store ranked OpenAI’s ChatGPT as the top free iPhone app, with Grok in sixth place. Notably, in January, China’s DeepSeek AI briefly overtook ChatGPT for the top spot—an episode that undercuts Musk’s claim that Apple’s ranking system makes it “impossible” for other AI apps to succeed.

OpenAI–Apple Integration Underpins Musk’s Frustration

At the heart of Musk’s complaint is Apple’s high-profile partnership with OpenAI. Launched at WWDC 2024, the collaboration enabled seamless integration of ChatGPT into iOS, iPadOS, and macOS experiences under the brand Apple Intelligence. This suite leverages OpenAI’s GPT-4o model across Siri, Writing Tools, and generative features like Visual Intelligence and Genmoji, delivering AI-powered assistance directly within Apple’s ecosystem.

The feature was lauded as a seamless way to bring generative AI to a broad audience, but to Musk, it represents a clear circumvention of xAI’s offerings.

Musk’s frustration is amplified by OpenAI’s soaring visibility—ChatGPT is pre-integrated into Apple’s UI, benefiting from prime positioning and default access. It’s a classic distribution advantage: millions of iPhone, iPad, and Mac users can now tap ChatGPT features without switching apps or even knowing they’re using it.

The clash comes against a backdrop of mounting regulatory scrutiny of Apple’s App Store practices. Antitrust watchdogs in the U.S., EU, and other jurisdictions have long accused Apple of favoring its own products or preferred partners, leading to several ongoing legal battles.

Last year, following the announcement that ChatGPT would be integrated into iPhones, iPads, and Macs, Musk threatened to ban Apple devices at all his companies if OpenAI’s technology was “fused” with Apple’s operating systems.

The dispute is also colored by Musk’s personal history with OpenAI. A co-founder of the AI startup in 2015, Musk later split from the organization, citing disagreements over its direction. Since then, he has repeatedly attacked OpenAI for abandoning its original nonprofit mission, even attempting a $97.4 billion buyout that was unanimously rejected. He has also targeted the company through multiple lawsuits, claiming its partnership with Microsoft and commercial focus violate its founding principles.

Critics were quick to note the irony of Musk accusing Apple of algorithmic bias. Since his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in 2022, now renamed X, Musk has faced allegations of meddling with the platform’s ranking systems to boost his own posts. A 2024 research study suggested X’s algorithm had been modified to amplify Musk’s account disproportionately. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, in a pointed response to Musk’s latest claims, shared a 2023 Platformer report that detailed a system Musk allegedly had built to promote his posts to all X users.

Questions have also been raised about Grok’s own impartiality. In June, investigations found that the “maximally truth-seeking” chatbot frequently deferred to Musk’s personal opinions when answering sensitive questions on subjects like the Israel–Palestine conflict, U.S. immigration policy, and abortion rights.

The unfolding battle adds another front to Musk’s increasingly public conflicts with both Apple and OpenAI, while also highlighting the growing competitive tensions in the AI sector.