President Trump’s trade war had, until Sunday night, centered on goods — cars, toys, food, clothes, the tangible stuff we put in and out of virtual and physical shopping carts. But those goods make up less than a quarter of the American economy. The bigger chunk of our economic pie is known as services — think Google, Netflix, Facebook, the plumbing of the internet, banking, insurance. And, yes, Hollywood films, the industry Trump now thinks needs saving with — you guessed it — tariffs! ICYMI: Trump wrote on Truth Social late Sunday that he was directing the government to “immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.” (Watch out, Hayao Miyazaki — your days of flooding the American market with mystical whimsy and childlike wonderment are over.) Of course, Hollywood studios (and anyone thinking about it for more than a few seconds) were left scratching their heads over how such a tax would work. As we’ve come to expect with Trump 2.0, it’s not clear whether the president is serious. Jon Voight, who serves as one of Trump’s Hollywood Ambassadors, said Monday that he met with Trump recently to discuss “certain tax provisions that can help the industry – some provisions that can be extended and others than could be revived or instituted.” But that sounds like mostly incentives, not tariffs. In other words, Voight recommended a carrot and Trump announced a stick. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Monday appeared to prefer a gentler approach, calling on Trump to work with California to create a $7.5 billion federal tax credit for the movie and television industry. Currently, tax incentives are exclusively the realm of states and municipalities. “We’ve proven what strong state incentives can do. Now it’s time for a real federal partnership to Make America Film Again,” Newsom said in a post on X “@POTUS, let’s get it done.” The White House said hours after he posted published that “no final decisions” had been made, and Trump later told reporters he wanted to run the idea by folks in the movie industry. If he is serious about foreign movie tariffs, though, Trump would be opening a new front in a war he has no real plan to win. And he’d be admitting to the world that his love of tariffs is not, as he’s long claimed, tied to some deep concern about trade imbalances but rather a desire to wield an economic cudgel. The Goods Place Perhaps because Trump’s intellectual allegiance to opinions he formed 40-plus years ago is so strong, he may be imagining container ships full of VHS tapes and spools of Kodachrome crossing the oceans when he thinks of the global film industry. But movies are not goods that travel in and out of ports — they are intellectual property that fall under the “services” economy. To tax a movie like a good, the administration would have to clearly define what a movie’s value is, and determine how much overseas production would classify a project as an “import.” (Plus, some poor writer’s room will have to start working on the next season of Emily in Paris under the new title Emily in Albuquerque.) The goods/services distinction matters a great deal. Because for all of Trump’s outrage over the fact that America buys more goods from overseas than it sells, the US exports far more services than it imports. (It’s a “services surplus” — the “rural juror” of econ jargon.) In fact, the US is the biggest exporter of services in the world. That gives our trade partners leverage they could use against us. “If Trump is serious about tariffs on movies, it’s a very dangerous escalation,” economist Justin Wolfers noted on Bluesky. “We would be extremely vulnerable to any service-based retaliation.” The good news is, the president may not be serious. In keeping with Trumpian tariff tradition, he announced the import tax with few details in a late-night social media post with the kind of dramatic capitalizations you might associate with a teen group chat (“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” it begins.) Asked about the tariffs in a press briefing Monday afternoon, Trump was less definitive than he’d been Sunday night, saying: “We’re going to meet with the industry; I want to make sure they’re happy about it.” Spoiler alert, Mr. President: They’re not happy. Several movie studio and streaming industry executives who spoke with CNN are downright apoplectic, my colleagues Brian Stelter and Jamie Gangel write. Shares of Netflix, Disney and CNN parent company Warner Bros. Discovery fell on Monday. To be fair, Trump has hit on a real issue dogging Hollywood known as “runaway production.” For years, foreign cities like Toronto and Dublin have offered large tax breaks to film and television studios. In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a massive tax credit to bring back production to Hollywood. But industry sources told Brian and Jamie the idea of using tariffs “would represent a virtually complete halt of production … But in reality, he has no jurisdiction to do this, and it’s too complex to enforce.” —CNN’s Elizabeth Wagmeister, Brian Stelter, Jamie Gangel and David Goldman contributed to this article.
Trump’s movie tariff threat is already unraveling
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Proposes Tariffs on Foreign Films, Sparking Industry Backlash and Economic Concerns"
CNN
7.0
TruthLens AI Summary
President Trump's recent proposal to impose a 100% tariff on foreign films has sparked confusion and concern within the Hollywood industry and beyond. Announced via a late-night post on Truth Social, Trump indicated that he would direct the government to begin the process of instituting these tariffs, claiming that the American movie industry is facing a crisis. However, many industry insiders, including Hollywood Ambassador Jon Voight, have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of such a tax, suggesting that incentives would be a more effective means to support the industry. California Governor Gavin Newsom has also called for a federal partnership to create a substantial tax credit aimed at revitalizing the movie and television sector in the state, highlighting the complexity of Trump's proposal and the preference for collaborative solutions rather than punitive measures.
The implications of Trump's tariff threat extend beyond Hollywood, raising concerns about potential retaliatory actions from trade partners and the broader economic ramifications. Economists warn that imposing tariffs on movies could escalate tensions in the services sector, where the U.S. holds a significant surplus in exports compared to imports. The distinction between goods and services is crucial, as movies are primarily intellectual property, complicating the enforcement of any proposed tariffs. Industry executives have reacted negatively to the announcement, with stock prices of major media companies like Netflix and Disney taking a hit. The lack of clarity and detail in Trump's proposal, coupled with his less definitive comments in subsequent interviews, suggests that the administration may not be fully committed to this course of action. In essence, while the president's intentions to address issues like runaway production are recognized, the practicality and effectiveness of tariffs as a solution remain highly questionable.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article delves into President Trump's recent proposal to impose a 100% tariff on foreign films entering the United States, reflecting his ongoing trade war narrative. This unexpected move raises questions about its feasibility, implications for the Hollywood industry, and broader economic impacts.
Analysis of Intentions Behind the Article
The article appears to critique Trump's approach to economic policy, particularly regarding the entertainment industry. By highlighting the absurdity of a film tariff, it aims to generate skepticism about Trump's seriousness and competence in managing complex economic issues. The mention of Hollywood as a significant player in the service economy suggests an intention to make readers consider the broader implications of such a tariff, particularly its potential to harm American cultural and economic interests.
Public Perception and Messaging
There is an implicit suggestion that Trump's proposal is more about political posturing than a workable economic strategy. The article seeks to shape public perception by framing Trump's tariff as misguided and lacking in clear rationale, thus encouraging skepticism among readers regarding his policies. This approach may resonate particularly with audiences who are critical of Trump's administration or who value the artistic contributions of Hollywood.
Political Context and Possible Concealment
While the article focuses on the tariff proposal, it may also serve to divert attention from other pressing political issues or controversies surrounding the Trump administration. By emphasizing an outlandish policy suggestion, it could distract from more significant challenges or failures. This tactic of misdirection is common in political discourse, particularly during contentious periods.
Manipulative Elements and Reliability
The article leans towards a critical stance on Trump's actions, suggesting a degree of manipulation in its portrayal. The use of humor and sarcasm indicates a deliberate effort to sway public opinion against the tariff idea. However, the reliability of the information presented, particularly regarding the actual feasibility of the tariff, is bolstered by the inclusion of comments from relevant figures, such as Jon Voight and California Governor Gavin Newsom, providing a measure of balance.
Economic Implications and Market Reactions
Should such a tariff be enacted, it could have significant repercussions for the film industry, potentially leading to higher production costs and limiting consumer access to diverse international content. This scenario might influence stock prices of major film studios and streaming services, creating volatility in sectors tied to entertainment. The financial markets could react negatively to the uncertainty introduced by such a policy.
Target Audience and Social Dynamics
The article is likely to resonate more with those who are engaged in cultural discourse, including film enthusiasts, industry professionals, and politically active individuals. It targets readers who are skeptical of Trump’s economic policies and who advocate for a more inclusive and globally connected entertainment landscape.
Global Power Dynamics
The proposed tariff also raises questions about the U.S.'s position in the global economy, particularly regarding cultural exports. In a time when international collaboration is crucial, such measures could alienate foreign filmmakers and disrupt established partnerships in the industry.
AI Influence on the Article
While it’s difficult to ascertain the direct influence of artificial intelligence on the writing of this article, AI models could have been used in the drafting process to analyze trends in public sentiment or to generate ideas for framing the narrative. The tone and structure suggest a deliberate crafting of arguments, potentially aided by AI-driven insights into public opinion.
In summary, while the article provides a critical view of Trump's proposed tariff on foreign films, it also highlights broader implications for the entertainment industry and American cultural identity. The article is reliable but leans towards a critical perspective, aiming to inform readers about the potential ramifications of such policies while fostering skepticism about their practicality.