The familiar story goes like this: the world is losing faith in America, the dollar’s reign is ending, and foreign investors are heading for the exits. A recent New York Times piece crystallized the argument, declaring that “the world economy is becoming wary of the U.S.” and warning that global investors are “balking at U.S. bonds.” The only problem is that the latest Treasury data tells almost exactly the opposite story.

Treasury International Capital data shows foreigners purchased a net $1.75 trillion in long-term American securities over the twelve months through July 2026, more than doubling the $799 billion pace from two years earlier. The dollar-is-dying thesis has a data problem.

That $1.75 trillion figure is worth sitting with. It represents a steep acceleration from the preceding twelve-month period’s $1.47 trillion and a massive leap from the roughly $799 billion recorded in the twelve months ending July 2024. As Breitbart Business Digest detailed in a point-by-point rebuttal of the Times piece, the composition of those flows has shifted in ways that undercut the declinist framing even further.

The Shift Inside the Numbers

During the twelve months ending July 2024, foreigners were net sellers of $151.5 billion in American stocks. They were parking money in Treasuries ($540.7 billion), corporate bonds ($306 billion), and agency bonds ($103.4 billion). The profile looked like cautious fixed-income allocation, not a vote of confidence in American enterprise.

The next twelve-month period flipped the script. Foreign investors became net buyers of $598.1 billion in U.S. equities, kept Treasury purchases strong at $456 billion, and added $341.1 billion in corporate bonds. By the most recent twelve-month window through July 2026, equity purchases had surged to $941.9 billion. Corporate bond buying climbed to $452 billion. Agency bond purchases rose to $114 billion.

Treasury purchases, at $246.6 billion, were the one category that slowed. But the overall picture is not one of retreat. It is one of rotation. Foreign capital is not leaving America. It is moving up the risk curve inside America, buying equities and corporate credit at a pace that dwarfs the fixed-income caution of two years ago.

Related Posts
Gold steadies as strong jobs data lift Fed hike odds

That distinction matters for metals investors. If foreigners were genuinely fleeing dollar assets, the safe-haven case for gold would strengthen considerably. Instead, the data suggests foreign capital still views U.S. markets as the destination of choice, even as it reallocates within them.

The Yield Question

The Times argued that rising Treasury yields reflect investors “nervous about the mounting national debt” demanding higher returns. There is a kernel of truth in any observation about fiscal trajectory. The ten-year Treasury yield has climbed above 5 percent after starting the year near 4 percent. That is a meaningful move.

But yield increases can mean several things at once. The inflation-adjusted yield on the ten-year Treasury reached 2.62 percent recently, while the market’s measure of expected inflation over the next decade stood at 2.33 percent. Those numbers tell a more textured story than simple panic. Real yields above 2.5 percent are historically attractive. They pull capital toward Treasuries, not away from them.

If the bond market were truly pricing a crisis of confidence, you would expect to see inflation expectations blowing out alongside nominal yields. Instead, breakeven inflation expectations remain relatively contained. The yield rise looks more consistent with a repricing of growth expectations and term premium than with a sovereign credit scare.

For gold, the real yield environment is the critical variable. As we explored in our analysis of gold’s path toward $5,000, the metal tends to struggle when real yields are high and rising, because the opportunity cost of holding a non-yielding asset increases. A ten-year real yield of 2.62 percent represents genuine competition for bullion.

The Norway Story Is Not What It Seems

One of the more dramatic claims in the declinist narrative involves Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, the largest in the world. The Times reported that Norway “planned to reduce its holdings of U.S. Treasuries as it looks elsewhere for stronger returns,” framing it as a loss of confidence in America’s fiscal position.

The actual proposal tells a different story. Norway’s fund managers suggested replacing some Treasury holdings with other bonds, including American mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fund’s overall dollar exposure in its bond benchmark would shift from approximately 52.9 percent to approximately 52.5 percent. That is a rounding error, not a geopolitical statement.

Fannie and Freddie have been wards of the state since 2008. Their mortgage-backed securities carry an implicit government guarantee that markets treat as functionally equivalent to Treasuries for credit purposes. Swapping Treasuries for agency MBS is a yield-enhancement trade within the dollar complex, not a flight from it.

Reserve Currency Mechanics and the Gold Angle

The dollar-decline argument often leans on reserve data showing the greenback’s share of global foreign-exchange reserves falling over time. A New York Fed analysis examined this trend and found the decline was concentrated among a few large holders. Across 62 countries with complete data for 2019 through 2023, active portfolio decisions actually increased dollar allocations slightly.

The countries driving the headline decline are not hard to identify. China has been reducing dollar holdings, a shift that tracks with trade policy reducing China’s surpluses and forcing it to find other buyers for excess production. Russia’s dollar holdings collapsed after sanctions imposed in retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine cut it off from global trade and dollar-denominated markets. These are policy-driven shifts, not market verdicts on American creditworthiness.

Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, announced a “global euro moment” in 2025, when the euro’s share of official reserves stood at approximately 20.3 percent. The latest data shows that share has slipped to roughly 20.0 percent. The euro moment, so far, has not arrived.

An ECB paper examined gold’s rising share of official reserves relative to Treasuries. At end-2025 market prices, gold represented approximately 27 percent of official reserves while Treasuries stood at roughly 22 percent. But the paper itself noted this development “largely reflects valuation.” Restoring gold to its end-2023 price would put Treasuries back at approximately 26 percent and gold at roughly 16 percent. The shift is about gold’s price surge, not a mass exodus from dollar reserves.

What the Stablecoin Market Tells Us

One data point rarely discussed in the de-dollarization debate: approximately 98 percent of stablecoins are dollar-denominated. The crypto ecosystem, whatever else one thinks of it, represents a real-time market vote on which currency the world wants to hold for transactions and settlement. The dollar wins that vote overwhelmingly.

The Buyback Distraction

The Times also raised questions about the Treasury’s liquidity buyback program, which purchases older, less actively traded securities. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addressed this directly, stating that the buyback program is not quantitative easing and cannot set the equilibrium price of the long bond.

The program’s purchase size runs up to $6 billion against a market that trades approximately $1 trillion per day. That ratio makes it a liquidity maintenance tool, not a price-setting mechanism. Comparing it to the Fed’s multi-trillion-dollar balance sheet operations during QE misrepresents the scale by several orders of magnitude.

The deeper dependency on foreign capital is real, though, and it predates the current debate by decades. Fox News has reported on America’s growing reliance on foreign investment, noting that the U.S. must borrow billions daily from foreigners to finance its trade deficits. As economist Clyde Prestowitz observed: “People don’t understand how integrated the U.S. economy has become with the global economy, how dependent we have become on other nations.”

That structural dependency is a legitimate long-term concern. But dependency and decline are not the same thing. The TIC data shows the dependency deepening because foreign investors keep choosing to send more capital to the United States, not less.

What This Means for Gold

None of this means gold’s long-term case is broken. Central bank buying remains a structural force. The fiscal trajectory in Washington is genuinely unsustainable over the long run, regardless of which party holds power. And the very fact that gold’s price appreciation has driven its share of official reserves above Treasuries at market prices tells you something about how the world’s monetary authorities are hedging their bets.

But the timing matters. Gold tends to perform best when confidence in the dollar system is actively eroding, when real yields are falling, and when credit stress is rising. Right now, the data shows the opposite on the first two counts. Foreign capital is accelerating into U.S. assets. Real yields are elevated. The dollar’s reserve share, adjusted for policy-driven outliers, is holding steady or even growing slightly.

The setup for gold may improve if fiscal pressures eventually force the Fed to accommodate larger deficits, pushing real yields lower. As we examined in our look at why gold sometimes struggles even during geopolitical stress, the metal does not always respond to the catalysts investors expect. The mechanism matters more than the headline.

For now, the capital-flow data argues against the most dramatic versions of the de-dollarization thesis. That does not make the dollar invulnerable. It means the timeline for dollar weakness may be longer than the declinist narrative suggests.

Investors holding gold as portfolio insurance against eventual monetary disorder are not wrong to do so. But those expecting an imminent dollar collapse may want to reckon with a world that keeps writing very large checks to own American assets.

The strongest argument for gold and precious metals broadly has never depended on the dollar dying tomorrow. It depends on the system’s structural incentives pushing toward larger deficits, more intervention, and eventual accommodation. That process is measured in years and cycles, not headlines.

The dollar is still king. Kings, of course, eventually fall. The question for metals investors is not whether, but when, and whether they are positioned to be patient enough to be right.