President Donald Trump announced that his administration intends to impose a 100% tariff on all films produced outside the United States and imported for distribution within the country. The move, is the latest extension of Trump’s protectionist trade agenda—this time targeting the globalized structure of the entertainment industry.
The proposed tariff, first floated in May, has now been reiterated with direct language from the president on Truth Social: “Our movie making business has been stolen from the United States of America, by other Countries, just like stealing candy from a baby.” While no formal implementation plan has yet been released, the announcement has already triggered a wave of uncertainty within major studios, industry labor groups, and international partners.
Hollywood’s current production and financing model is deeply global. Studios routinely leverage international tax incentives, facilities, and talent—particularly in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia—where blockbuster productions such as superhero franchises and high-end streaming dramas have increasingly been based. The U.S. film industry posted $22.6 billion in exports in 2023, generating a $15.3 billion trade surplus, according to the Motion Picture Association.
Industry analysts warned that such a sweeping tariff would dramatically increase costs for distributors and studios alike. Paolo Pescatore, an analyst at PP Foresight, said, “There is too much uncertainty, and this latest move raises more questions than answers. As things stand, costs are likely to increase, and this will inevitably be passed on to consumers.”
Executives from Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix, Paramount Skydance, and Comcast declined or did not respond to requests for comment on the proposed policy. However, behind the scenes, the reaction has been one of confusion and concern. Industry leaders pointed out that modern productions are rarely confined to a single country—films often involve financing, pre-production, post-production, and visual effects work spread across multiple territories.
Unions and guilds previously urged the administration to instead support domestic production through expanded tax incentives rather than import penalties. After the initial mention of the tariff in May, a coalition of film labor organizations sent a letter advocating for legislative solutions to attract film and television jobs back to U.S. soil through reconciliation bills in Congress.
Studio insiders also noted that a blanket tariff could penalize U.S.-based creative workers who operate internationally—especially in areas like post-production, visual effects, and location shoots—many of whom rely on global projects for employment. In fact, production spending in the U.S. declined 26% year-over-year in 2024, as studios sought cost savings abroad amid rising inflation and streaming market contraction.
There is still significant ambiguity about the legal basis and enforcement mechanism for the tariff. The White House has yet to clarify how the rule would be applied, whether it would be universal or country-specific, or how it would impact co-productions where American and international partners share creative and financial control.
If implemented, the policy could realign decades of globalization in the screen industries, force studios to reconsider location strategies, and spark trade disputes with countries that have long-standing audiovisual partnerships with the U.S. It may also complicate relationships with allies whose entertainment sectors are tightly interwoven with Hollywood, particularly Canada and the UK.
As the industry awaits further detail, the announcement has set off alarm bells in both boardrooms and production offices. With Mipcom and AFM around the corner, international buyers and distributors will be watching closely to gauge the ripple effects on pricing, availability, and legal risk in the world’s largest entertainment market.
Related News
