US President Donald Trump has said he will hit movies made in foreign countries with 100% tariffs, as he ramps up trade disputes with nations around the world. Trump said in a post onTruth Socialthat he was authorising the US Department of Commerce and Trade Representative to start the process to impose the levy because America's movie industry was dying "a very fast death". So what might this mean for both the US film industry and the global movie business, including the UK? Announcing the new tariffs, Trump declared that Hollywood was "dying". So is it? It's true that the industry has been through a really rough time in recent years. The pandemic saw production close down and the impact is ongoing. Hollywood studios spent $11.3 billion on productions in the second quarter of 2024,a 20% drop from the same period in 2022, as studios continued to cut costs in an attempt to recover from Covid losses. Any shoots of recovery were then severely stifled by the 2023 actors and writers strikes. Then the wildfires struck earlier this year. And for several years now, more and more people - not just youngsters - have been turning to YouTube and other streaming platforms for content. The US remains a major film production hub andaccording to Variety, 2025 has seen a rebound in box office numbers since last year, with overall domestic revenues up 15.8% on 2024 so far. The latestMarvel superhero film, Thunderbolts*, topped the North American box office this weekend, raking in an estimated $76 million, marking a promising start to the summer season. But Hollywood is definitely still up against it. The president says he wants 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. We want movies made in America again!" This has led to questions about whether the tariffs would also apply to American film companies producing films abroad. Several recent major movies produced by US studios were shot outside America, including Deadpool & Wolverine, Wicked and Gladiator II. Hit franchises like Mission Impossible also shoot overseas. We also don't yet know if the tariffs will be applied retrospectively. Trump later told reporters that "other nations have been stealing the movies and movie-making capabilities from the United States", which may suggest he was only referring to non-US films. We'll have to wait for more detail. Many countries offer tax breaks to encourage film production such as New Zealand, Australia and the UK and that's something Trump wants to take on. But it's not the only reason a US film company might wish to film abroad. Some choose to do so for the specific location, exotic and exciting backdrops for example. Who could forget Tom Cruise's ascent of the Burj Khalifa, Dubai, in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol? What could it mean for the next James Bond movie, a franchise now owned by US giant Amazon, but based on an iconic British character who works for MI6, based in London? And it's not just other countries that offer incentives - other US states are luring film production away from Hollywood. Georgia, Illinois and Kentucky are among the many other US states which California are now competing with. Gavin Newsom, California's governor, who Trump described as "grossly incompetent" when speaking about the movie tariffs on Monday, is currently pushing for his plan to more than double the state's film and TV tax incentives to $750 million annually. While Newsom has made no comment yet on Trump's proposal,his senior communications advisor told Deadline: "We believe he has no authority to impose tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, since tariffs are not listed as a remedy under that law." There are more questions than answers at this stage. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has a moratorium on tariffs for digital goods until 2026. Presumably films count as digital goods. And what would they base the tariffs on? Box office revenue or production costs? Is streaming content included? That would have a huge impact on US companies like Netflix. What about post-production ie editing? Tim Richards, Vue Entertainment CEO and founder, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "A big part of this is what constitutes US film - is it where the money comes from, the script, the director, the talent, where it was shot?" And how do you even classify a foreign film when so many are co-productions and are often shot in multiple countries? Trump appeared to be talking about film and not TV but it's not 100% clear at this stage. Would tariffs apply to films made for streaming or just cinema releases? We'll have to wait for more detail. And of course, Trump may rollback on the proposals as he has done with some other tariffs. Obviously, putting a 100% tariff on foreign films means a huge cost increase for those production companies who want to sell to the US market. Commenting on Trump's announcement, the UK government's Culture Media and Sport Committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage MP said: "Last month the Culture, Media and Sport Committee warned against complacency on our status as the Hollywood of Europe. President Trump's announcement has made that warning all too real. "Making it more difficult to make films in the UK is not in the interests of American businesses. Their investment in facilities and talent in the UK, based on US-owned IP, is showing fantastic returns on both sides of the Atlantic. Ministers must urgently prioritise this as part of the trade negotiations currently under way." Head of media and entertainment trade union Bectu in the UK, Philippa Childs, said in a statement: "These tariffs, coming after Covid and the recent slowdown, could deal a knock-out blow to an industry that is only just recovering and will be really worrying news for tens of thousands of skilled freelancers who make films in the UK." Kirsty Bell, chief executive of production company Goldfinch, squestioned how the tariffs would work, pointing out that blockbusters like Barbie, which was distributed by US film studio Warner Bros Pictures, "was actually shot virtually entirely in the UK". "If those US films don't get partly produced or produced in the UK, freelancers are going to be jobless. I'm telling you now, they really are going to be jobless," she told PA. The governments of Australia and New Zealand have also spoken out in support of their countries' film industries. "Nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry," Australia's home affairs minister Tony Burke said. New Zealand's Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told a news conference that his government was awaiting further details of the proposed tariffs. "But we'll be obviously a great advocate, great champion of that sector and that industry," he added. And with the Cannes film festival just around the corner, uncertainty hangs in the air with many US film producers looking to sell foreign distribution rights. Tariffs could incentivise US film companies to make more films on home soil but the risk is that if it's more expensive than to do so abroad, some films just won't get made. More incentives or rebates could help offset this but we just don't know at this stage if that's under discussion on a national scale. NPR Radio film critic Eric Deggans warned that the tariffs, should they be introduced, could further harm the industry. Other countries may respond by placing tariffs on American films, he told the BBC, making it "harder for these films to make profits overseas". "It may create a situation where the tariffs in America are causing more harm than good," he added.
What will Trump's film tariffs mean for Hollywood - and the UK?
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Proposes 100% Tariff on Foreign Films Amid Trade Disputes"
Bbc News
7.0
TruthLens AI Summary
In a significant move, US President Donald Trump has announced plans to impose a 100% tariff on foreign-made films as part of his ongoing trade disputes with other nations. Trump has argued that the American film industry is in decline, citing a need to revitalize Hollywood by promoting domestic productions. The film sector has indeed faced challenges, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused production halts and led to a notable decrease in investment, with studios spending $11.3 billion in the second quarter of 2024—a 20% decline from the previous year. Compounding these issues, recent strikes by actors and writers, along with natural disasters like wildfires, have further stifled any recovery efforts. Despite a slight rebound in box office revenues this year, the industry continues to grapple with competition from streaming platforms and international productions that attract audiences away from traditional cinema. Trump's proposed tariffs raise questions about their applicability, particularly concerning films produced by American companies abroad and whether the tariffs would apply retrospectively or only to future releases.
The implications of these tariffs extend beyond the US, affecting global film production dynamics, especially in countries like the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, which have become popular filming locations due to their attractive tax incentives. UK officials have expressed concerns that such tariffs could harm the film industry there, jeopardizing jobs for thousands of freelancers who rely on these productions. Industry experts have noted the potential for retaliatory tariffs from other countries on American films, which could complicate international distribution and profitability. As the Cannes film festival approaches, uncertainty looms over the future of film production, with many US producers contemplating the viability of projects given the proposed tariffs. The situation remains fluid, and stakeholders are eagerly awaiting further clarification on how these tariffs will be implemented and their broader impact on the global film industry.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article presents a significant development regarding US President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on foreign-made films, which raises questions about its implications for the film industry and the broader global market. The announcement comes amid ongoing challenges in Hollywood, including the impact of the pandemic and recent strikes, suggesting a desperate call for revitalization of domestic production.
Intended Purpose of the Article
The piece aims to inform readers about the potential consequences of Trump's tariffs on both the US film industry and international markets, particularly in the UK. By framing the narrative around the supposed decline of Hollywood, the article invites readers to consider the economic and cultural ramifications of such tariffs.
Perception to be Created
There is an intention to evoke concern about the future of Hollywood and the film industry at large. The use of phrases like "dying a very fast death" aims to create urgency and may drive public sentiment toward supporting domestic film production, aligning with nationalist economic policies.
Potential Omissions
The article may downplay or omit the perspectives of independent filmmakers and the creative community who could be adversely affected by these tariffs. By focusing primarily on big studios, it risks neglecting the broader implications for smaller productions and diverse content.
Manipulative Nature
There is a degree of manipulation in how the situation is presented. The framing of Hollywood's decline serves to rally support for protectionist measures. The language used appeals to national pride while simultaneously vilifying foreign productions, which may not accurately reflect the complexities of the film industry.
Truthfulness of the Content
Much of the information appears factual, highlighting real issues like pandemic effects and recent strikes. However, the context and framing may skew public perception. The statistics presented about production costs and box office performance illustrate current challenges but are couched in a narrative that implies a crisis.
Societal Message
The article suggests that the US must reclaim its status in the global film industry, promoting a sense of urgency to support domestic production. This aligns with a broader narrative of nationalism and economic protectionism.
Connections to Other News
Comparing this article with others discussing trade policies and protectionist measures reveals a common theme of economic nationalism. It aligns with ongoing discussions about the impact of globalization on domestic industries and could be part of a larger strategy by the Trump administration to appeal to base supporters.
Impact on Society and Economy
The potential imposition of these tariffs could lead to increased costs for consumers and a possible rise in ticket prices, affecting the accessibility of films. It may also prompt retaliatory measures from other nations, further escalating trade tensions.
Target Demographics
This news likely resonates more with nationalist groups and individuals who prioritize domestic production over global collaboration. It may appeal to those who feel economically threatened by foreign competition.
Market Implications
The announcement could lead to volatility in stock prices of major film studios and streaming platforms, particularly if investors perceive a significant risk to international revenue streams. Companies like Disney, Warner Bros., or Netflix could be affected by these tariffs.
Geopolitical Relevance
This news ties into broader geopolitical dynamics, as it signifies a move towards isolationism in cultural production. It reflects ongoing debates about national identity and economic sovereignty in the context of globalization.
AI Influence on the Narrative
While it is unclear if AI was used in crafting this article, the structured presentation and emphasis on specific statistics suggest a professional editorial process. If AI were involved, it might have helped optimize the narrative flow or ensure clarity in presenting complex information.
Manipulation Indicators
Elements of manipulation are present, particularly in the emotive language and the framing of Hollywood's challenges. This could serve to galvanize public opinion against foreign competition, positioning the tariffs as a necessary measure for national pride.
The overall reliability of this article is moderately high, given its use of factual data and credible sources; however, the framing and emotional appeals may lead to biased interpretations.