Donald Trump has reiterated his proposal for a 100% tariff on films produced outside the United States, stating the measure is intended to counter what he described as the theft of the American movie industry by other nations.
On Monday, Mr. Trump asserted via his Truth Social platform that the levy would “solve this long time, never ending problem.” He stated, “Our movie making business has been stolen from the United States of America, by other countries, just like stealing ‘candy from a baby.’” The post singled out California, adding that the state, “with its weak and incompetent Governor, has been particularly hard hit!” This announcement renews a threat from May, when he said he would talk to Hollywood executives about the plan because the industry was dying “a very fast death.” No implementation date for the tariff on “any and all movies that are made outside of the United States” was provided.
The film tariff threat is part of a wider series of trade actions. Last week, the administration announced a 100% levy on branded or patented drug imports and 50% levies on kitchen and bathroom cabinets. On Monday, additional tariffs were revealed: 10% on softwood timber and lumber, and 25% on kitchen cabinets, vanities, and upholstered wooden furniture. These duties are scheduled to take effect on 14 October, with a provision for some to increase next year for countries that fail to reach an agreement with the U.S. A proclamation confirmed the measures after a Truth Social post promised “substantial Tariffs on any Country that does not make its furniture in the United States.”
While details were provided for timber and furniture, significant questions surround the film proposal. It remains unclear if the tax would apply to content on streaming services like Netflix, nor is it known how a film’s value would be calculated for assessment. The White House has been approached for comment. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce expressed it was “deeply concerned,” noting that American production houses rely on Canadian facilities, crews, and talent. Catherine Fortin‑LeFaivre, a senior vice president at the chamber, stated, “These tariffs risk punishing US studios for filming in Canada by driving up costs, stifling investment, and undermining the competitive advantage our countries have built together.” She warned the tariff would “weaken both economies” and jeopardize “thousands of middle‑class jobs.”
Investment analysts have also raised questions about the policy’s practical application. Dan Coatsworth, an investment analyst at AJ Bell, remarked, “The threat of 100% tariffs on movies made outside of the US raises more questions than it does answers,” explaining that tariffs are typically imposed on goods. He pointed to economic factors driving productions overseas, stating, “Filmmakers have been progressively lured by tax incentives that come from shooting movies in other parts of the world, and the Los Angeles film industry has lost its glitz and glamour.” Mr. Coatsworth also highlighted the difficulty in defining an “Americanmade movie,” questioning how a film would be classified if it were shot in the U.S. but involved foreign actors, directors, or funding.
“So it’s hard to understand just how Trump intends to impose the levy,” Mr. Coatsworth added. He analyzed the potential economic effects, suggesting that forcing production to stay domestic could inflate budgets. “Theoretically, being forced to produce movies in the US could push up their costs. Content makers would pass on this cost to the customer and that could hurt demand for streaming companies and cinema operators.” Despite these potential disruptions, he observed that investors do not “appear to see this as a serious threat” at present. Stock prices for companies like Netflix and Disney, after dipping briefly following the announcement, subsequently bounced back.
The global nature of contemporary filmmaking is evidenced by several recent major U.S. studio films, including *Deadpool & Wolverine*, *Wicked*, and *Gladiator II*, which were all filmed abroad. Data from movie industry research firm ProdPro indicates that while the U.S. remains a major production hub, its production spending has declined. The country saw $14.54 billion (£10.94 billion) of production spending last year, which the firm’s annual report showed was a 26% decrease since 2022. During that same period, countries including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK attracted an increase in production spending from international projects.
In response to the proposal, the UK government is awaiting more specific details to assess the potential impact on its film industry. A spokesperson for the Department for Business & Trade emphasized the sector’s value, stating it employs millions of people and “generates billions for our economy.” The ambiguity of the tariff proposal leaves the status of certain productions unresolved. For instance, it is not known whether the levy would affect a film like *Wicked*, which was produced by an American studio but filmed entirely in the UK, a situation that exemplifies the complex international collaborations common in the modern film industry.
