In 2025 global trade policy saw major shifts affecting physical gold. In April 2025, the U.S. announced a broad “reciprocal tariffs” plan (Executive Order 14257) imposing a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and higher country-specific duties to correct trade imbalances . A July 31 CBP customs ruling (N351466) then unexpectedly classified standard 1 kg and 100 oz gold bullion bars as “processed” (HS 7108.13.5500), making them subject to the high 39% U.S. tariff rate . Gold futures immediately spiked on this news, with record prices as markets feared disruption to longstanding bullion supply chains . Swiss refineries (which process ~70% of the world’s gold) were hardest hit: they warned that a 39% duty would make exports “economically unviable” and effectively halt U.S. gold bar sales .
After days of market turmoil, President Trump publicly reversed course. On Aug. 11, 2025 he posted “Gold will not be Tariffed!” and directed the White House to clarify that investment-grade gold remains exempt . U.S. officials confirmed an executive order was in the works to correct the classification error. Switzerland meanwhile continued intense talks with the U.S. to roll back the levy . In sum, 2025 saw a near-imposition of a new 39% tariff on common bullion bars – a rule later rescinded by U.S. policy – highlighting how tariff law and technical HS coding can suddenly alter gold’s treatment.
Beyond the U.S.–Swiss episode, broader trade pacts also touch on gold trade. For example, a May 8, 2025 US–UK agreement cut certain duties (e.g. on automobiles, steel and aluminum) but left a 10% “blanket” tariff on most other exports . In practice, that means UK gold exports (not specially exempted) would still face a 10% duty. Likewise, an Aug. 21, 2025 US–EU framework commits the U.S. to charge at least a 15% tariff on most EU goods (the higher of the MFN rate or a 15% “reciprocal” rate) . Since gold’s normal MFN duty is very low (often zero), this scheme implies EU-origin gold would typically incur a 15% U.S. duty unless explicitly exempted. These recent trade agreements therefore preserve higher duties on precious metals by default, unless negotiators carve out exceptions.
Overall, tariffs on gold in 2025 became a flashpoint: a U.S. technical decision nearly slapped 39% rates on popular bullion bars , only to be walked back by presidential directive . Swiss officials warn the episode has already strained supply chains and could cost thousands of jobs if not resolved . Even where no specific gold law changed, trade accords like the US-UK and US-EU deals implicitly maintain high tariffs on gold under their broad terms .
Bitcoin’s Tariff Immunity
By contrast, Bitcoin (and most cryptocurrencies) are not “imported goods” and thus evade traditional customs duties. Bitcoin exists only on a global blockchain network, transferrable peer-to-peer across borders with no physical shipment . As a crypto analysis notes, tariffs “typically apply to physical goods crossing borders. Since cryptocurrencies are digital and not physical, they are not subject to customs duties in the same way as traditional imports or exports” . In practice this means no U.S. or international tariff schedule can assess a duty on “imported bitcoins” – there is no HS code or customs checkpoint for a digital coin.
Industry observers highlight this contrast. Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy, neatly summed it up in April 2025: “There are no tariffs on Bitcoin,” since unlike gold bars it can be “bought and sold on crypto exchanges…with no extra charges, except a small trading fee” . In other words, buying bitcoin is a financial transaction, not an import transaction. U.S. policymakers tacitly acknowledge this – no trade agreement includes a tariff on cryptocurrencies. (Governments can tax crypto gains or regulate exchanges, but they cannot impose an import duty at the border on a blockchain transfer.)
Underpinning this is Bitcoin’s “borderless” nature . Crypto runs on decentralized networks without a central authority, enabling coins to be sent anywhere 24/7. This decentralization – a feature, not a bug – makes Bitcoin effectively exempt from any tariff law designed for physical cross-border trade .
Implications for Cyberspace, Trade, and Sovereignty
These differences have far-reaching implications. In international trade, tariffs are a tool to influence physical supply chains and trade balances. Gold imports and exports count as goods flows (e.g. Switzerland’s huge gold shipments to the U.S.) and can be taxed or blocked by customs . Bitcoin transactions, however, occur “in cyberspace” and do not enter trade statistics in the same way. A country’s trade deficit isn’t measured by bitcoin flows, so tariffs cannot be used to manage crypto’s effect on trade. This limits governments’ leverage: they can negotiate gold tariffs, but the only way to “control” bitcoin is via financial regulation (tax rules, exchange licensing, capital controls), not customs duties.
The absence of tariffs on bitcoin also touches financial sovereignty. Gold has traditionally served as a store of value for states (e.g. central bank reserves) and individuals alike, with governments able to regulate or seize it (U.S. historical gold bans, import duties, etc.). Bitcoin, by contrast, is purposefully outside any single government’s control. Some countries (like El Salvador or Bhutan) have embraced it as a path to “financial sovereignty”, giving citizens direct access to a hard currency . Others see it as undermining their currency power; many are rolling out state-backed digital currencies to reassert control (China’s digital yuan is a prime example) .
In cyberspace, Bitcoin’s role as a global digital asset means it can instantly move wealth across borders without customs intervention . Advocates argue this empowers individuals – “owning your money” without border checks or tariffs. Critics counter that it challenges nations’ ability to enforce financial laws and sanctions. In practice, the Bitcoin experience underscores a broader shift: as trade and finance digitalize, old tools like tariffs apply only to tangible goods like gold, while virtual assets demand new approaches. Regimes must now consider anti–money laundering rules, taxing digital transactions, and international agreements on crypto regulation, because traditional import tariffs simply don’t bind an asset that lives in cyberspace .
Sources: Recent news reports and official statements (e.g. U.S. Customs rulings and presidential announcements ), trade statistics and agreements , plus industry analyses . These reflect developments up to August 2025 on how gold and Bitcoin are treated in trade policy.