Recently, President Trump issued a statement expressing concerns about the rapid decline of the American film industry. He pointed to aggressive tax incentives from other countries as threats to national security and suggested imposing a 100% tariff on films produced abroad. “It’s a message and promotion,” he said, emphasizing a desire to see more films made in America.
This raises some puzzling questions; how would a 100% tariff affect films directed outside the U.S.? Would films set overseas be exempt? How would customs duties be enforced? A White House official mentioned that films are treated differently under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which would give Trump certain powers to respond to perceived national security threats. Meanwhile, Hollywood executives seem to be responding quietly. The numbers speak for themselves—Los Angeles has seen a 38% drop in feature film production days, from 3,901 in 2017 to just 2,403 in 2024. Big franchises like “Avatar” and “Mission: Impossible” often film abroad, drawn by those enticing tax incentives.
Whether Ethan Hunt’s adventures in the Lake District truly threaten national security, compared to actual sensitive military communications, is a question historians might ponder. Trump’s vision for cinema seems fixated on revitalizing the 1950s when Hollywood was at its peak, and American films were a significant part of cultural diplomacy during the Marshall Plan. As journalist Walter Lippmann pointed out in 1947, the U.S. aimed to broadcast ideals of freedom and democracy through film.
It’s somewhat ironic to hear Trump playing the victim in this scenario. Usually, it’s small countries raising alarms about American cinema’s dominance. In the past, French director René Clair remarked that foreign films posed a “threat to the identity” of the French people, echoing concerns over American cultural hegemony.
While it’s easy to invoke notions of soft power, there’s a significant difference between perceived and actual national security threats. Trump’s aspiration to restore American filmmaking could lead to strange alliances, tightening ties with isolated authoritarian nations. For instance, “Avatar” was pulled early from Chinese theaters to make room for more “patriotic” films, while in Iran, a filmmaker faced prison for a romantic comedy that didn’t comply with state regulations.
Ultimately, national security mechanisms can often suppress artistic expression. An audience member once remarked about John Ford’s adaptation of a Steinbeck novel that, despite the characters’ hardships, at least they had trucks. France faced a wave of American films after World War II, and directors like Truffaut and Godard countered this with their own voices. Truffaut himself cited the influx of American films as a transformative influence on his career.
Films have always been an international medium, and the trend is growing. “Jurassic Park” made waves at the box office, but today, international markets account for over 70% of Hollywood’s revenue. Ironically, the U.S. has experienced few of Trump’s proposed trade obstacles in this sector, with the film industry boasting a significant trade surplus.
Countries can’t nurture their own cinematic visions while suppressing their own cultures. Following the cyberattack on Sony Pictures regarding the controversial film “The Interview,” there was a chilling effect on creativity, highlighting the tension between artistic expression and geopolitical concerns.
Is this what Trump means by “messaging and propaganda”? His admiration for leaders like Kim Jong-un raises eyebrows, and the narrative suggesting that films produced abroad carry hidden agendas feels contrived. Bill Mechanic, a producer who has worked internationally, argues foreign governments rarely intervene in the political themes of films. “They never ask for changes,” he explains.
It’s hard to see how Trump’s proposed tariffs could support American filmmaking. Tariffs would likely stifle the struggling theater distribution business and hurt the indie film sector. Overall, fewer films would be produced domestically. The best way to revitalize Hollywood might be through tax incentives rather than punitive tariffs.
Yet, doubts linger over the true intent behind these proposals. With the White House stating that no final decision has been made regarding such tariffs, it seems Hollywood isn’t reverting back to the 1950s anytime soon. The “celluloid Athens” Lippmann described feels like a distant memory, and as George Lucas’s THX motto suggests, “the world is listening”—but now, it’s Hollywood’s turn to listen, too.
