Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, has done us all a solid. He even suggested that we should hit foreign films with a 100% tariff. To defend his decision, he’s cited a vague and overblown threat to national security. He contended that foreign films cause dangerously high levels of propaganda. Details of the announcement have caused concern, confusion and an ongoing conversation in the film world. Most people think this is due to an odd cocktail of political grandstanding and massive misunderstanding of the international film ecosystem.
In his proclamation, Trump argued that foreign films threaten American culture. He proposed making it more expensive to shoot outside the US as a way to protect American workers and values. However, this move seems to blur the lines between films produced by U.S. companies in foreign locations and entirely foreign films released in the United States. For that reason, critics say Trump’s failure to understand the complexities of the global film industry rings hollow, putting in danger the proposal’s credibility.
According to the California film industry, the movie business has hit a dramatic downturn in LA-based productions the last several years. To create great films for less, filmmakers are constantly searching for smart ways to save money. Others have found some enticing fiscal carrots in other states around the U.S. and even abroad. Atlanta has emerged as a significant production hub, drawing major projects, including several Marvel films. Notably, Tyler Perry’s expansive 330-acre studio lot has become a focal point for film and television production in the region.
Trump’s tariffs would only serve to deepen this downturn in Los Angeles. Productions are already moving to other states or off the continental U.S. due to cost. It becomes very difficult for local filmmakers in California to compete. There are minimal state incentives for shooting, compared to England and Australia that lure in the big productions with huge tax credits.
One industry analyst Andrew Pulver even went so far as to call Trump’s plan “reprehensible.” He claims that the tariffs that are being proposed are intended to destroy the international film industry. He underscored that the concept of the U.S. building full production industries back on the home front is financially infeasible. Beyond that, he argued, this would be an anti-creative model.
Additionally, Trump’s proposal has received widespread condemnation of its boorish undercurrent of hipster bigotry. He suggests that these foreign films put American values and lives at risk. This decision ignites passionate emotions from some, but it threatens to lose the support of a vast majority of other creators in this debate. The creative film industry is often referred to as a truly collaborative world, an industry that is built on diversity and global partnerships.
The industry and political implications are daunting as well. It is meant to strengthen productions in the U.S. It could unintentionally push filmmakers to look for options beyond American borders. Lower-budget films frequently opt for less populated countries where shooting costs are reduced, which could further undermine the local industry.
Additionally, some observers speculate that Trump’s declaration may serve as a preemptive measure for potential future crises similar to pandemic-style disruptions that affected production timelines globally. He’s establishing himself as a national cultural security protector. This approach appears designed to appeal to targeted voter bases, but it fails to acknowledge the larger economic financial condition of our new reality of a globally connected industry.