President Donald Trump has once again thrown Hollywood—and much of the global film industry—into turmoil. On Monday, September 29, 2025, Trump announced via Truth Social his intention to impose a sweeping 100% tariff on any movies produced outside the United States. The move, which would mark the first time a U.S. president has attempted to levy a tariff on a service rather than a physical product, has left entertainment insiders, legal experts, and international partners scrambling to understand the potential fallout.
Trump’s latest declaration isn’t entirely out of the blue. As reported by Variety and MarketWatch, the president first floated the idea in May 2025, expressing frustration that other countries have attracted American filmmakers with generous tax incentives and lower labor costs. In his latest post, Trump accused foreign governments of having "stolen" the U.S. moviemaking business "just like stealing candy from a baby." He specifically called out California, which has been hit hard by the exodus of film production to overseas locations.
The economics behind this shift are complex. While American actors and directors often prefer to work close to home, the lure of significant financial savings abroad has proven difficult to resist. According to The New York Times, even after accounting for flights, hotels, and other logistical expenses, filming in countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand can be far cheaper than staying stateside. These nations not only offer attractive tax rebates but also benefit from lower wages for crew and production staff. In response, California and other states have rolled out their own tax incentive programs, yet the race to the bottom continues.
Hollywood’s reaction to Trump’s tariff threat has been one of confusion and concern. As Variety notes, industry insiders are scratching their heads over how such a policy could be enforced. Modern film production is an international affair—editing, visual effects, and even principal photography are often scattered across multiple countries. There’s no clear point of entry or transaction to tax, making the logistics of imposing a tariff mind-boggling. One draft proposal, dubbed the "Jon Voight plan," suggested a 120% tariff on the value of subsidies received for overseas shoots, which would function less as a tax and more as an outright embargo. Other ideas, like a movie ticket tax or a surcharge on domestic box office revenue for foreign-made films, have not been officially proposed by the administration.
The legal hurdles are equally daunting. Trump has relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to justify many of his second-term tariffs, but there’s a catch: the 1988 Berman Amendment to IEEPA specifically prohibits the president from regulating the import or export of "informational materials," including films. This amendment, enacted to prevent government censorship during the Cold War, covers everything from publications and posters to movies and digital media. As Georgetown University law professor Anupam Chander told MarketWatch, the "statute couldn’t be more plain." Fordham University’s John Pfaff went further, stating, "The law says ‘you CANNOT do this.’"
Legal precedent backs up this skepticism. In 2020, a federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order to ban TikTok, citing the Berman Amendment. While the government has sometimes interpreted the amendment narrowly—arguing it doesn’t apply to works still in production—most legal experts agree that completed films, at the very least, are protected. The Supreme Court is currently weighing cases related to IEEPA, and its forthcoming decisions could have major implications for Trump’s tariff ambitions.
There’s also the matter of international trade agreements. A global moratorium on customs duties for digital services and goods, maintained through the World Trade Organization and extended until March 2026, could further complicate any attempt to tax streaming films or digital movie imports. If the U.S. abides by this moratorium, as law firm Possinger Law Group notes, tariffs on movies transmitted over the Internet might be off the table entirely.
Hollywood is bracing for impact. Major upcoming releases such as "Tron: Ares" (shot in Vancouver), "Wicked: For Good" (filmed in London and Cairo), and "Avatar: Fire and Ash" (partially shot in New Zealand) could all be affected—if the tariffs ever materialize. But as Variety points out, no one in the industry is cheering for this outcome. Hollywood’s unions, worried about jobs leaving the U.S., have pushed for federal subsidies to counter foreign incentives, not tariffs. Theater operators—already battered by the pandemic and shifting consumer habits—are adamantly opposed to anything that would raise ticket prices and further erode their fragile recovery. Audiences, too, are unlikely to welcome higher costs at the box office.
The numbers tell a sobering story. The U.S. box office peaked at nearly $12 billion in 2018, only to plummet to just over $2 billion in 2020 as the pandemic shuttered theaters nationwide. While there’s been some recovery, domestic box office receipts have not surpassed $9 billion in recent years, and the number of theatrical releases remains about half what it was in 2019. Warner Bros. Discovery stands out as a rare bright spot, having reached $4 billion in global box office sales so far in 2025.
Markets responded swiftly to Trump’s announcement. Netflix shares opened down 1% on Monday, reflecting investor anxiety about the streaming giant’s international production strategy. Interestingly, shares of AMC and The Walt Disney Company rose at the opening bell, perhaps suggesting that investors see potential benefits for companies more focused on domestic production or theatrical exhibition.
Trump’s movie tariff proposal is just one piece of a broader protectionist push. Starting Wednesday, October 1, 2025, the administration plans to implement a raft of new tariffs: 100% on branded pharmaceutical drugs (with some exceptions), 25% on heavy trucks, 50% on imported kitchen cabinets and vanities, and 30% on upholstered furniture. Trump also announced plans for a substantial, though as yet unspecified, tariff on all imported furniture.
Political opposition to the movie tariff is mounting. As Variety observes, even Republicans have balked at similar aggressive regulatory moves in the past. The recent FCC controversy over ABC affiliates and Jimmy Kimmel saw swift backlash from both sides of the aisle, suggesting that open confrontation with the entertainment sector can quickly become politically toxic. Legal challenges seem inevitable, and the courts may well block the tariff before it ever takes effect.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: Trump’s threat to slap a 100% tariff on foreign-made films has reignited debates about the future of American moviemaking, the limits of presidential power, and the global nature of modern entertainment. Whether this policy ever becomes reality or remains just another headline-grabbing proposal, its ripple effects are already being felt from Hollywood to Wellington—and everywhere in between.
