Armando Iannucci, the sharp-witted creator behind HBO’s acclaimed political satire Veep and the darkly comic film The Death of Stalin, has found himself at the center of a very real political drama. As he seeks to launch a new satirical project based on the speeches of former U.S. President Donald Trump, Iannucci has run headlong into a wall of American financial resistance—one built, he says, on fear of political retribution and legal headaches in the current climate.
Speaking candidly at a Creative UK event in Liverpool on October 2, 2025, Iannucci described a Hollywood landscape chilled by anxiety over Trump’s renewed influence. According to HOLR Magazine, Iannucci revealed, “Yeah, you wouldn’t get the money for that at the moment, I’m afraid,” was the refrain he kept hearing from U.S. financiers. When he pressed for details, he was met with a cryptic but ominous, “Well, you know, if you want what comes with it…”
It’s not just the money men who are skittish. Journalists and industry insiders have echoed these warnings, telling Iannucci that anyone daring to poke the bear risks landing on an unofficial ‘revenge list.’ As he put it in comments reported by Deadline, “If you’re on the list, your life is made miserable. The inland revenue will come calling, you better lawyer up, you will spend the next four years just weighed down by legal issues you have to get through.”
While the specifics of Iannucci’s Trump project remain closely guarded, the mere notion of lampooning the former president has proven radioactive for potential American backers. “There will be financiers in America about to give money to a project going, ‘Do you know what? Let’s just see how this plays out before I hand that over.’ And so you’ll have another project sitting there,” Iannucci lamented, as quoted by Mediaite.
This isn’t just a one-man struggle, either. The entertainment industry, according to HOLR Magazine, is gripped by a wider climate of fear. Trump’s administration has previously threatened tariffs on foreign film productions, a move that has already discouraged investment and stalled projects, particularly in the UK. “Nobody knows how it works, but that’s not the point,” Iannucci said of the tariffs. “The point is, there will be financiers in America about to give money to a project going, ‘Do you know what? Let’s just see how this plays out before I hand that over.’”
The shadow of political retaliation looms especially large in the wake of recent high-profile incidents. The suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s show by ABC, Sinclair, and Nexstar—following pressure from the Trump administration—sent a chilling signal to the industry. According to Daily Mail, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr warned on September 17, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way... There’s calls for Kimmel to be fired. You could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this. Again, the FCC is going to have remedies that we can look at. We may ultimately be called to be a judge on that.” That very day, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was yanked off the air, and Trump publicly celebrated the move, even suggesting that some networks should have their broadcast licenses revoked for negative coverage.
Trump’s adversarial relationship with the media hardly ends with late-night television. He has personally sued numerous media companies—including ABC, CBS, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal—for what he perceives as unfair or damaging coverage. As Daily Mail reports, settlements from these lawsuits have totaled over $31 million, though not all have gone his way. A $15 billion complaint against The New York Times was dismissed by a federal judge as “decidedly improper and impermissible.”
For Iannucci, these examples are not abstract cautionary tales—they’re the backdrop against which his own efforts are playing out. He noted, “I’ve been talking to journalists out there who say, ‘If you’re on the list, your life is made miserable.’” The implication is clear: taking on Trump, even in the realm of satire, is seen as a risky business proposition, fraught with potential legal and financial peril.
The Writers Guild of America has weighed in as well, condemning what it describes as corporate and political suppression. The guild has stressed the need to protect artistic and journalistic freedoms, arguing that the current climate threatens the very foundation of a free and open society. The situation, they say, is not just about one satirical project or one creator’s woes—it’s about the ability of artists and journalists to challenge power without fear of reprisal.
Despite the daunting obstacles, Iannucci remains undeterred. He has indicated that he may seek funding outside the United States, relying on foreign sources to bring his vision to life. “Let’s see what happens,” he said, signaling a determination to press on even if it means bypassing Hollywood entirely. His resolve is perhaps best summed up by his willingness to pursue creative endeavors that may be deemed controversial, regardless of the personal or professional risks involved.
Iannucci’s own views on Trump are no secret. In a 2017 interview with The Independent, he called the former president “dangerous, unstable, deranged and an idiot.” Yet his current struggle isn’t just about personal animus—it’s about the broader question of whether satire and dissent can survive in an environment where power is quick to punish perceived slights.
For industry veterans and newcomers alike, Iannucci’s predicament offers a sobering glimpse into the pressures facing Hollywood today. The threat of tariffs, legal harassment, and regulatory crackdowns has made even the most seasoned financiers think twice before backing politically charged content. As Iannucci put it, “You will spend the next four years just weighed down by legal issues you have to get through.”
Still, history is full of artists who have faced down censorship and intimidation in the pursuit of their craft. Whether Iannucci’s Trump project ever sees the light of day, his willingness to speak out—and to keep pushing forward—serves as a reminder that the battle for creative freedom is never truly over. The stakes, both for individual creators and for the culture at large, remain as high as ever.
