Honestly at this stage all countries should pull their gold.
The system was somewhat reasonable when the US acted more or less benevolent, but clearly when we're in a space where the US threatens to invade allies then they clearly are no longer trustworthy
As someone deep into International Relations, I always find it a bit interesting to hear when someone says 'X nation is untrustworthy'. I mostly find it interesting because it means some event disrupted norms to a level that The Commons is aware. Everyone in IR knows trust/morals is not something to put weight into, but 'normies' are always surprised whenever there is a chance in IR that contradicts international law or norms.
It will surprise most Americans to realize the world is not governed by Liberalism/Institutions, despite the veil presented. However, at the highest level the world is managed by the principles of IR Realism.
'Trust' is subordinate to national interests, the purpose of trust is small, only enough to make deals. However, even then, deals are always backed by verification methods and checked consistently.
None of this is unique to the US, The West, or this century.
If you didn't trust someone, you wouldn't give them all your gold to look after. That's called trust. You can dress it up in terms of realism or whatever, but it's trusting to do it nevertheless.
The system was somewhat reasonable when the US acted more or less benevolent, but clearly when we're in a space where the US threatens to invade allies then they clearly are no longer trustworthy