Hollywood and the global film industry were struck by President Donald Trump’s announcement on May 4 that he intends to levy a 100% tariff on all foreign-made films. Framed as a measure to strengthen domestic film production and a means to safeguard national security, the announcement raises concerns about its potential impact on the global film market and economic dynamics of filmmaking.
Announced via Truth Social, President Trump labeled foreign films as a “national security threat,” citing anxieties over propaganda and the outsourcing of U.S. film production due to attractive foreign incentives. The proposal, influenced by actor Jon Voight — who Trump appointed as the “special ambassador” to Hollywood — aims to help the entertainment industry with desires to “make Hollywood great again.”
Although the White House has noted that no final decisions have been made, the idea of such tariffs has elicited strong reactions from industry experts. They contend that such measures might raise production costs and sever long-standing multinational partnerships. Major studios, indie filmmakers, and streaming services like Netflix — which derives up to 50% of its content from outside the country — would all suffer financially as a result.
Moreover, film production relies heavily on international locations, talent and post-production services. Countless productions are filmed abroad to capitalize on financial incentives and aesthetic locales. Trump’s desire to strictly produce films in the U.S. through the implementation of tariffs could complicate these arrangements, potentially leading to delays and increased expenses.
Late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel has comedically chimed in regarding Trump’s tariffs. On an episode of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” released May 5, Kimmel poked fun by stating, “Next year, ‘The White Lotus’ is gonna be set at a Hampton Inn.” Kimmel’s joke underscores the concern that tariffs will increase costs while reducing the variety and quality of content that audiences can access.
The policy has also raised concerns about creative freedom. Co-hosts of daytime talk show “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, criticized the proposal, suggesting it could stifle artistic expression and limit access to culturally significant films produced outside the United States. Goldberg went on to discuss how foreign films foster intercultural communication and understanding. In an industry that is already unsettled and facing challenges, the tariffs would bring even greater uncertainty.
Independent films are especially vulnerable as they frequently depend on foreign funding, production and distribution to remain afloat. In contrast to big studios, independent filmmakers typically have limited funding and rely on inexpensive resources overseas, such as crews, locations and tax breaks. A tariff would significantly raise costs, rendering many independent projects unprofitable and restricting their capacity to reach American consumers through theaters and streaming services. The outcome of this would be a sharp decline in the unique, distinctive storytelling that independent films are renowned for.
The tariffs could also lead to higher ticket costs and a smaller selection of films for moviegoers. Distribution issues for independent and foreign-language films may restrict the expansive variety of cultures that are shown in theaters. Streaming platforms will be similarly impacted with staggered releases and less diverse films since they frequently offer a wide variety of international content.
On a positive note, CNN reported that the industry sources they spoke with doubt the tariffs will actually be implemented, adding that they would increase the cost of production. While industry officials are unclear how Trump’s tariffs would exactly work, they explain that his assertion that foreign films are a “national threat” may not hold up in a legal setting.
Beyond economic concerns, Trump’s reelection has led to more concerns regarding political retaliation against the entertainment sector. Such retaliation was seen through the release of “The Apprentice,” a biopic depicting Trump’s years before politics. This retaliation included legal threats from Trump’s team and major studios’ reluctance to distribute the movie. The film industry has begun to self-censor as a result of this anxious atmosphere, with studios fearful of creating any content that does not align with Trump and his policies.
While reviving and bolstering the American film industry is important, imposing tariffs acts as a form of indirect censorship since it prevents the exploration of different stories and viewpoints that are brought to the screen by international productions. These films provide audiences a sense of interconnectedness on a global scale through storytelling, which furthers empathy and understanding. In addition to isolating viewers, restricting their access to American theaters also silences international filmmakers whose work adds to a more diverse and inclusive cinematic landscape.
Hollywood now remains in this period of uncertainty, grappling with the implications of Trump’s proposed tariffs and broader political position. Navigating this complicated terrain will require striking a balance between political constraints, creative freedom and commercial interests. The coming months will reveal how the entertainment sector adapts to these challenges and what it means for the future of global filmmaking.
Fiona Clancy is an Arts & Entertainment Intern for the spring 2025 quarter. She can be reached at clancyf@uci.edu.
Edited by Drew Askeland and Joshua Gonzales