Africa's Gold Producers Scramble to Capitalize on Soaring Prices
JOHANNESBURG—In April 2022, gold cost almost $1,950 per ounce. That price is now just short of $3,425 and Africa's producers are scrambling to take advantage of a windfall propelled by market uncertainty, said minerals and markets analysts.
And the big producers, such as Ghana and South Africa, are selling the precious metal mostly to traders and investors in the United States who are putting their money into gold—a commodity that thrives during times of instability, said economists who warn that the U.S. rush on gold is alienating other countries that are usually big investors in the metal.
Gold's astronomical rise is also attracting organized crime groups, with more delving into the illicit trade than ever before, said law enforcement officials.
Gold's record run began shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, traders explained. U.S. tariffs, particularly the 145 percent on imports from China and President Donald Trump's announcement of reciprocal tariffs on other countries, followed by a 90-day suspension, fanned the flames of uncertainty, with the price of gold rising by the day.
The Trump administration has said the import duties, including a blanket 10 percent on goods and products coming into the United States, will reignite domestic manufacturing, create jobs for Americans, and generate billions of dollars in tax revenue.
Africans and their governments were disappointed and angered when Trump imposed upon them tariffs between 30 to 50 percent.
Related Stories
4/23/2025
4/21/2025
The economic policies, though, are proving to be a boon to Africa's gold producers, putting billions of extra dollars into their coffers, said trade analysts.
Africa produces more than a quarter of the world's gold, which in 2024, was an output of more than 680 metric tons. The continent is the biggest regional producer of the precious metal,
South African minerals expert Peter Majors told The Epoch Times, 'In times of market chaos and global uncertainty, investors run to a commodity that's always a safe bet, and that's gold.'
Kanayo Awani, head of trade finance at the Africa Export-Import Bank, said gold is an asset that's frequently used to store wealth.
A technician cleans impurities from melted gold bars at Primera Gold's laboratory in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo, on May 12, 2023.
Alexis Huguet/AFP via Getty Images
'Inflation across the world is eroding the real value of wealth. On the contrary, gold usually maintains and even increases in value over time. Gold has proven to be a stable and even an appreciating asset during high inflation,' she told The Epoch Times.
Sam Ankrah, a Ghanaian economist and investment strategist who's the CEO of the Africa Investment Group, told The Epoch Times that a global trade war means central banks around the world are investing in gold, trying to diversify their asset bases and to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar.
The main buyer of gold currently is the United States, with the world's largest economy's 'greed for gold' disrupting global supply chains and freezing out other traditionally big buyers, mostly in Europe, said Majors.
The United States has exempted minerals, including gold, from tariffs on the basis that they're essential to America's national security and economic development.
In January alone, the United States imported $344 million worth of gold from Africa's second-largest producer, South Africa,
Majors said the United States is set to import record amounts of gold from South Africa in 2025.
'South Africa's gold exports to America for the whole of 2024 were worth less than $700 million, so we're on track towards unprecedented exports,' he said.
Trump has targeted South Africa in several executive orders since he re-entered the White House on Jan. 20, accusing Pretoria of policies that discriminate against white citizens and of siding with America's enemies.
He stopped annual financial aid of $440 million to the continent's largest economy.
In 2024, South Africa's exports to the United States, mainly gold and other minerals, were valued at $8.21 billion,
Gold
In January, the United States also imported gold from Canada ($1.1 billion), Switzerland ($575 million), Mexico ($414 million), and Australia ($404 million), the Bureau of Economic Analysis said.
Data provided by the WGC in late February indicated that more than 600 metric tons, or almost 20 million ounces of gold, has been transported into vaults at the Commodities Exchange Center (COMEX) in New York since December 2024, with the main buyers being U.S. banks, investors, and traders.
'Supply chains have been disrupted because of this huge sucking sound, which has been the United States importing gold ahead of potential tariffs,' the WGC's John Reade
The Council said the United States has the largest national reserve of gold in the world by far, with 8,133.46 metric tons, followed by Germany (3,352), Italy (2,452), France (2,437), and China (3,000).
Richard Mubilu, mineral consultant and trade analyst at Pearl Precious Metals in Uganda, said that American demand for gold means other countries that usually hold vast reserves of the precious metal, like the United Kingdom and Switzerland, have seen their stocks dwindling.
Some in Europe have accused the United States of 'draining' their gold reserves, and have suggested that the 'hoarding' of the precious metal in New York will cause a global shortage.
Nikos Kavalis, managing director of European minerals consultancy Metals Focus,
'As the market has been shifting inventories of gold from private London vaults to COMEX vaults, the availability of metal in private vaults in London has been declining,' he said.
Mubilu said other big buyers of African gold in 2024 were Poland, Turkey, India, and China.
According to the World Gold Council, the major buyers so far in 2025, along with the United States, have been Uzbekistan, China, Kazakhstan, Poland, India, the Czech Republic, and Qatar.
Gold's popularity means production in Africa is booming, but some regions have moved faster than others to cash in, Majors said.
In West Africa, some of the world's biggest mining companies are pouring
Professor Gilbert Khadiagala, a political scientist at Wits University in Johannesburg, told The Epoch Times: 'As things stand, some African gold producers are going to be hit with high tariffs by the Trump administration, like the 31 percent on South Africa. This has got them thinking: 'How about we offer Trump some kind of better route to our gold as a bargaining chip to reduce the tariffs, like giving the Americans mining rights?''
Gold's high price is also opening other, darker, doors.
'A lot of the gold entering the United States and other markets has been mined illegally,' Majors said. 'The UAE (United Arab Emirates) imports the most African gold, legal and illegal, and it's in the UAE that the gold is laundered and then exported around the world.'
Jalel Chelba, head of the African Union Mechanism for Police Cooperation, said there's been 'a significant jump' in the numbers of international and African organized crime groups becoming involved in the illicit gold trade and gold trafficking.
'Criminals are exploiting the high price; they go where the money is,' he told The Epoch Times. 'Groups are concentrating less on crimes like human trafficking and drug smuggling and moving resources towards illegally mined gold from countries like DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), CAR (Central African Republic), and Sudan, where there's conflict and lawlessness.'
William Sommers, a broker who specializes in precious metals at the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, told The Epoch Times that buyers 'don't really care' where the gold comes from.
'It's a frenzy—just silly,' he said. 'If this carries on for the next few years, I don't know where it's going to end. I mean, there's not enough gold left in the ground to sustain this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Queer-Owned Brands Face Tariff Blows, Respond With Transparency and Collective Power
At the start of President Donald Trump's second term in January, his administration quickly followed through on his promise to increase tariffs on U.S. trading partners. It began in February with a 10% tariff increase on all Chinese imports and a 25% increase on steel and aluminum products. Tariffs escalated between China and the U.S., with the highest reaching a 145% tariff for Chinese imports. After a 90-day pause starting March 14, during which tariffs on both countries' imports were reduced by 115%, the U.S. and China reached an agreement on June 10. Tariffs on Chinese imports settled at 55%, while U.S. import tariffs settled at 10%. For many U.S. businesses, the initial rise in tariffs has had a profound impact, particularly for those in the retail and apparel sectors. News Is Out examined how queer-owned businesses have started speaking out about the impact of the tariffs and what they are doing to combat rising costs, or at least how to draw consumers' attention to their efforts. Queer-owned apparel brand tomboyX shared a statement from CEO Leslie Garrand about the tariffs on its social media channels: 'If you're uneasy about the whole Trump situation–yeah, same. 'These are unpredictable times, and we want to be real with you. Trump's wild tariffs are creating serious challenges for small businesses like ours — and starting this May, we now face sky-high tariff costs. 'The good news: Many of our products (like swim!) are less affected. So go ahead, shop away. 'The not-so-good news: Products we sustainably produce in China are now hit with tariff rates of + 145%. To help offset just a portion of this cost increase, we're introducing a temporary 'Trump Tariff Surcharge' on those items starting May 1. You'll see a clear note on the product page and in your cart. (The amount varies by item, and we'll remove the charge as soon as we can.) 'Thank you for sticking with us and supporting a small business doing its best to weather the chaos responsibly. Built to endure. –Leslie Garrard – CEO' Since then, items on the tomboyX website that are affected by tariffs now feature a note in red that says 'Tr*mp Tariff Surcharge.' The additional fees range from around $1 up to $7. 'TomboyX has always done things the right way—high-quality underwear, sustainably made, and inclusively designed,' Garrad shared with News Is Out. 'But the new Trump tariffs put extra pressure on small, values-led brands. These added costs are significant and unplanned, and relocating our manufacturing footprint requires time and money. For small businesses, it hits hard. We're grateful to our community for standing with us as we adapt.' Wildfang, a queer- and female-founded apparel company based in Portland, Oregon, has also spoken out publicly about tariffs. Wildfang CEO Emma McIlroy was interviewed on CBS Mornings on April 9 about tariffs, which heavily impact the company. When asked how the steep rise in tariffs would affect her company, McIlroy shared an example. 'We had our summer order—so we make apparel, we make fashion—arrived on Monday this week. If that order had arrived today, it would have cost us $178,000 more to receive it. I don't have that money.' When asked if those increases could be passed on to customers, McIlroy said, 'I do think you're going to see businesses have to pass this on to consumers. If you were trying to maintain the current structure, it would mean an 83% increase in consumer prices. I don't think you'll see that full price increase, but that's how aggressive this would be for consumers.' However, McIlroy shared that Wildfang is doing everything it can to mitigate the rising costs. 'So, as a small business, we're going to try everything in our power not to pass that along,' McIlroy said. 'That's going to include working with our factory partners, looking at new factories and locations to manufacture, and that's going to include cutting our own costs. Every business will try to do that. But as a small business, there aren't that many places to cut. I think a last resort is going to increase prices.' After speaking out publicly about how Trump's tariffs could affect Wildfang, McIlroy said the response from the community and customers has been overwhelmingly supportive. We've had tons of lovely messages of support from our community,' McIlroy told News Is Out. 'We've also had lots of notes from other business owners sharing their frustrations and fears and thanking us for speaking up and raising awareness about the topic.' In terms of next steps, McIlroy said Wildfang is working with factories to fast-track orders during the 90-day tariff pause. 'Additionally, we're working with our factories to sample in Vietnam and Indonesia to diversify our manufacturing base,' she said. For Gay Pride Apparel owners Sergio Aragon and Jesus Gutierrez, the rise in tariffs hasn't yet directly impacted the business, but much remains to be seen. Gay Pride Apparel does much of its business with American printers, but tariffs could affect them in other ways. 'There is a lot of uncertainty for us about whether they'll raise their prices because they're being hit with tariffs,' Gutierrez said in a Zoom interview with News Is Out. 'And it's also very timely for us, because obviously, it's about to hit Pride. So we're trying to figure out: will our production partner raise our prices? Does that mean that we have to raise our prices on our end?' It's not just tariffs giving Gutierrez and Aragon pause; it's also a challenging economy. 'We know the economy is a little bit rough right now to begin with,' Gutierrez said. 'Our pricing is already pretty high compared to a normal T-shirt. So we're trying to juggle it all. And I think it's all been so volatile—just changing every day—that it hasn't really hit us in one way or another. It's almost kind of still up in the air for us.' Gay Pride Apparel's partners have been working closely with the company to minimize shipping costs and maintain open lines of communication. 'But the good thing is, our business partners and our suppliers have been really transparent with us and working with us,' Aragon said. 'There are different workarounds they're doing to help us avoid it.' When asked their thoughts on tomboyX's approach of including a clear note about tariffs, Gutierrez applauded the company's transparency. 'I love it,' Gutierrez said. 'I mean, as you mentioned earlier, we're very transparent with our customers, and I think it's because it's just us two. We engage in a two-way conversation with our customers and our community. So seeing tomboyX do that was really fun and felt like something we would do. We actually saw it and were like, 'Oh, should we consider doing something?' But we don't know how it's going to affect us yet.' Gutierrez and Aragon are considering what to do next and if tariffs really begin to impact the company negatively. While some companies are considering passing on increases, Gay Pride Apparel is also exploring an alternative. 'But as people are raising their prices and responding to this, we were talking about maybe lowering our prices and making less money per sale per product, but becoming more accessible,' Gutierrez said. 'Because truthfully, we're struggling. Everyone struggles. How do we meet our customers where they're at?' On a positive note as a queer-owned business, Gay Pride Apparel is seeing an increase in consumers supporting the company as an alternative to those that have changed their stances on support for Pride, diversity and inclusion, like Target and Walmart. 'They'll straight up call it out,' Gutierrez said. 'On Threads specifically, we'll get tagged randomly in posts that are like, whether it's a boycott post or it's a Pride-related kind of 'tag your favorite queer business.' And then people are like, 'Oh, I only shop at Gay Pride Apparel now because the rest of them are abandoning us,' or 'I only stick to companies that are here all year, such as Gay Pride Apparel.' They'll even say, 'I'm trying to support, even if it's 20% more, 30% more, to buy the shirt—I'll support Gay Pride Apparel over XYZ.'' While not a U.S.-based business, Canadian company GrrrlL Spells does a significant amount of business with consumers in the U.S. Last year, Grrrl Spells made headlines as one of the queer- and trans-owned businesses when their partnership with Target was drastically reduced and their labels were removed from remaining products. Creator and designer of GrrrlL Spells, En Tze Loh, shared their experience as a Canadian brand. 'Even though we're a Canadian business, the majority of our online customers are from the states,' Loh said. 'The de minimis exemption allowing orders under $800 to enter the U.S. tariff-free was removed specifically for products manufactured in China, now subjecting them to an absurdly high tariff fee regardless of where it's shipped from. We design all of our own products but get them manufactured both locally and abroad, including China. Unfortunately, many of our products will now be subject to those tariffs when delivered to U.S. customers.' As a result, Grrrl Spells has temporarily suspended shipping particular products to the U.S. 'We have decided to stop shipping any of our items that were manufactured in China to the U.S. as we don't believe anyone should have to pay these extreme fees, which drastically decreases our sales. Enamel pins, which are our most popular product, do not have any North American manufacturers at all, and they are mostly produced in China, so sadly, there isn't an alternative.' During a time that should see the company's biggest spikes, Grrrl Spells is preparing for a slower season. 'We are definitely anticipating a much quieter Pride month and year due to the tariffs and decline of the economy in general, as we've already been feeling the effects of it since the year began. We're trying our best to adapt to the changes and find alternatives in order to keep going, but it has been challenging.' Loh also wants consumers and LGBTQ+ people to know how grateful they are for their support. 'We would like to send so much love and strength to every queer and trans person during these wild times and thank you so much to everyone who has supported us throughout all these years,' Loh said. 'We need the support of each other more than ever right now. While we may not be able to ship many of our current goods to the U.S. at the moment, we're working on a new collection for Pride with items that we will be able to ship tariff-free, so please stay tuned!' This story was produced by News Is Out and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. RELATED CONTENT: Here's How Trump's Tariffs Are Putting A Damper On Black Protective Hairstyles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bungling Lutnick And Miller Self-Own in Back-Slapping Tweets
When Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick tweeted out a Wall Street Journal article that said the Donald Trump-imposed tariffs had 'generated $ 37.8 billion in revenue for the U.S. in April and May,' he was probably expecting some MAGA back-slapping. That dutifully arrived in the form of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, with his fellow Donald Trump acolyte retweeting Lutnick's X post. Except neither of them, apparently, appeared to have read beyond the first paragraph. For there, not exactly hidden, was the phrase: 'The tally, while a big jump, still falls short of the amount Trump has said the U.S. is raking in.' In an article published on Wednesday, headlined 'Here's How Much Money the U.S. Is Earning From Tariffs, in Charts,' the WSJ analyzed Treasury data. It said the government had made $37.8 billion in total in duties after President Trump imposed tariffs on a range of sectors, including 'steel, aluminum, cars, and goods from China, Mexico, and Canada'—$15.6 billion in April and $22 billion in May. However, compared to what Trump has said tariffs were bringing into U.S. coffers, this is some way off—between 70% and 82% less according to Daily Beast analysis, in fact, depending on which of Trump's claims to credit. Before his 90-day pause, Trump had claimed on April 8, 'We're making a fortune with tariff. $2bn a day.' Then, just two days later, on April 10, he went further still in a Cabinet meeting, saying that 'the number is probably $3.5 billion a day,' per With 61 days in April and May, that would have worked out to either $122bn or $213.5bn respectively, which would work out at $84bn or $178bn less than the government's own official figures tweeted out by Trump's close friend Lutnick. Lutnick, Miller, and the White House did not espond to the Daily Beast's request for comment.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Aukus: Could Trump sink Australia's submarine plans?
Australia's defence minister woke up to a nightmare earlier this week - and it's one that has been looming ever since the United States re-elected Donald Trump as president in November. A landmark trilateral agreement between the US, UK and Australia - which would give the latter cutting-edge nuclear submarine technology in exchange for more help policing China in the Asia-Pacific - was under review. The White House said on Thursday it wanted to make sure the so-called Aukus pact was "aligned with the president's America First agenda". It's the latest move from Washington that challenges its long-standing friendship with Canberra, sparking fears Down Under that, as conflict heats up around the globe, Australia may be left standing without its greatest ally. "I don't think any Australian should feel that our ally is fully committed to our security at this moment," says Sam Roggeveen, who leads the security programme at Australia's Lowy Institute think tank. On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn). The technology underpinning the pact belongs to the US, and the UK already has it, along with their own nuclear-powered subs. But those that are being jointly designed and built by the three countries will be an improvement. For Australia, this represents a pivotal upgrade to military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet, and allow it to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first time. It is a big deal for the US to share what has been described as the "crown jewel" of its defence technology, and no small thing for the UK to hand over engine blueprints either. But arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from their own. It's about putting their technology and hardware in the right place, experts say. But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, all three countries had very different leaders - Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia. Today, when viewed through the increasingly isolationist lens Trump is using to examine his country's global ties, some argue the US has far less to gain from the pact. Under Secretary of Defence Policy Elbridge Colby, a previous critic of Aukus, will lead the White House review into the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC the process was to ensure it meets "common sense, America First criteria". Two of the criteria they cite are telling. One is a demand that allies "step up fully to do their part for collective defence". The other is a purported need to ensure that the US arms industry is adequately meeting the country's own needs first. The Trump administration has consistently expressed frustration at allies, including Australia, who they believe aren't pulling their weight with defence spending. They also say America is struggling to produce enough nuclear-powered submarines for its own forces. "Why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?" Colby himself had said last year. The Australian government, however, is presenting a calm front. It's only natural for a new administration to reassess the decisions of its predecessor, officials say, noting that the new UK Labor government had a review of Aukus last year too. "I'm very confident this is going to happen," Defence Minister Richard Marles said of the pact, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). But there's little doubt the review would be causing some early jolts of panic in Canberra. "I think angst has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning… The review itself is not alarming. It's just everything else," Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, tells the BBC. There is growing concern across Australia that America cannot be relied upon. "[President Donald Trump's] behaviour, over these first months of this term, I don't think should fill any observer with confidence about America's commitment to its allies," Mr Roggeveen says. "Trump has said, for instance, that Ukraine is mainly Europe's problem because they are separated by a big, beautiful ocean. Well of course, there's a big, beautiful ocean separating America from Asia too." Washington's decision to slap large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year did not inspire confidence either, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying it was clearly "not the act of a friend". Albanese has stayed quiet on the Aukus review so far, likely holding his breath for a face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. This is a chat he's still desperately trying to get the US president to agree to. But several former prime ministers have rushed to give their two cents. Scott Morrison, the conservative leader who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be "over-interpreted" and scoffed at the suggestion another country could meet Australia's security needs. "The notion… is honestly delusional," he told ABC radio. Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison dramatically tore up in favour of Aukus, said Australia needs to "wake up", realise it's a "bad deal" which the US could renege on at any point, and make other plans before it is too late. Meanwhile, Paul Keating, a famously sharp-tongued advocate for closer ties with China, said this "might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself". "Aukus will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused President Joe Biden." The whiff of US indecision over Aukus feeds into long-term criticism in some quarters that Australia is becoming too reliant on the country. Calling for Australia's own inquiry, the Greens, the country's third-largest political party, said: "We need an independent defence and foreign policy, that does not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA." There's every chance the US turns around in a few weeks and recommits to the pact. At the end of the day, Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense, helping keep Americans employed. And the US has plenty of time - just under a decade - to sort out their supply issues and provide them. "[The US] also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus - all three parties get to lift their boat jointly by having a more interoperable defence technology and ecosystem," Mr Graham adds. Even so, the anxiety the review has injected into the relationship is going to be hard to erase completely – and has only inflamed disagreements over Aukus in Australia. But there's also a possibility Trump does want to rewrite the deal. "I can easily see a future in which we don't get the Virginia class boats," Mr Roggeveen says, referring to the interim submarines. That would potentially leave Australia with its increasingly outdated fleet for another two decades, vulnerable while the new models are being designed and built. What happens in the event the US does leave the Aukus alliance completely? At this juncture, few are sounding that alarm. The broad view is that, for the US, countering China and keeping the Pacific in their sphere of influence is still crucial. Mr Roggeveen, though, says that when it comes to potential conflict in the Pacific, the US hasn't been putting their money where its mouth is for years. "China's been engaged in the biggest build-up of military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the United States' position in Asia basically hasn't changed," he says. If the US leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk – but could the UK realistically offer enough for Australia to sustain the agreement? And if the whole thing falls apart and Australia is left without submarines, who else could it turn to? France feels like an unlikely saviour, given the previous row there, but Australia does have options, Mr Roggeveen says: "This wouldn't be the end of the world for Australian defence." Australia is "geographically blessed", he says, and with "a reasonable defence budget and a good strategy" could sufficiently deter China, even without submarines. "There's this phrase you hear occasionally, that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it's a big doorstep if that is true… Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney." "There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block - a fear of abandonment, this idea that we can't defend ourselves alone. But we absolutely can if we have to." What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, the UK and US? Submarine deal sends powerful message to China The laidback Australian city key to countering China Donald Trump is looming over Australia's election
