On Monday evening, in an unusual late-night development, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a proposal to create a first-of-its-kind $7.5 billion federal subsidy for domestic film production. To cement the seriousness, and Trumpiness, of the plan, Newsom took to social media to add: “Now it’s time for a real federal partnership to Make America Film Again.” If this proposed alliance seems oddly solicitous for a governor whom President Donald Trump recently called “grossly incompetent,” there’s good reason for it: Newsom is responding to a draconian, potentially ruinous, proposal from Trump himself.
A day earlier, the president had posted a bold plan to Truth Social, the right-wing social media service where he often makes policy announcements (when not posting bizarre AI images of himself as the pope or shilling for his memecoin). The time had come, Trump said, to reopen Alcatraz and let it serve as a prison once again. Why, and why now? The answer could be that the president wanted to interrupt a news cycle dominated by a Meet the Press interview earlier that day in which he said “I don’t know” when asked if he had an obligation to uphold the Constitution. Or, it could be, as one online sleuth suggested, simply because the 1979 film Escape From Alcatraz aired on a Palm Beach TV station the night before.
But Trump wasn’t done. His next Truth Social post would sort of logically follow his Alcatraz remarks if he had been inspired by a recent viewing of a classic, Don Siegel–directed Clint Eastwood film:
The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death. Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, 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!
It’s a pronouncement as bold in force as it is nebulous in details (and erratic in its use of capitalization). It has also, understandably, sent Hollywood into a panic about what it means and what happens next. So what does it mean? And what happens next? Honestly, there are no clear answers to either question or the sub-questions they raise. But let’s try to figure it out anyway.
Where is this coming from?
As hard as this might be to believe, it’s possible that this new policy announcement stems from a place of genuine concern. Domestic film and television production has been in decline for some time. One 2024 report charted a 40 percent drop from the industry’s peak 2022 levels. Production in Los Angeles has been hit especially hard, a decline that’s worsened in 2025, leading to a trickle-down effect. Fewer projects filming in L.A. means fewer jobs for those at every level of the industry.
There are many reasons for this, including the waning of the Peak TV era, studios’ continued timidity about the future of theatrical distribution, production slowdowns created by the 2023 strikes, lingering effects of the COVID-19 lockdown, and the 2025 wildfires. But a big factor is cost. “It’s cheaper to bring 100 American people to Ireland than to walk across the lot at Fox, past the sound stages, and do it there,” Rob Lowe recently said in an attempt to explain why The Floor, the game show he hosts, shoots in Ireland. Projects film where they can save money. L.A. has to compete with U.S. production hubs in places like Atlanta, New Mexico, and New York but also with international spots that offer hard-to-refuse tax incentives and cheaper crews.
So Trump is worried that not enough movies are being made in America?
There’s a lot going on in this announcement, but for now, let’s work from the assumption that, yes, this is fundamentally what the proposed tariff policy is about: boosting domestic film production. Citing unnamed sources, The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Trump’s attention has been drawn to the matter by acting legend/outspoken MAGA true believer/Trump’s Hollywood “special ambassador” Jon Voight. Whatever role Voight might have played in inspiring Trump, Voight’s own plan, revealed the day after Trump’s tariff announcement, involves a more complex series of tax incentives, subsidies, deals with theater owners, and other factors. The Trump plan—so far limited to that single social media post—is more of a blunt instrument than a surgical tool. On the face of it, it means that films made outside the United States will be subject to a 100 percent tariff, thus encouraging the industry to make films within the United States. It’s pretty simple, really.
Almost too simple?
Yes, almost too simple. You could even see it as a dunderheaded attempt to create a one-size-fits-all solution to a complicated problem, similar to, well, every other tariff Trump has introduced. Rather than encouraging domestic production via, say, a policy akin to the tax incentives that draw so many productions abroad, a 100 percent tariff would discourage the industry from foreign production through the risk of a stiff punishment. Would this apply to, say, a globe-spanning spy thriller? Presumably, yes. So no more hanging off the Burj Khalifa. And no more re-creating Pandora in New Zealand. Mount Rushmore was good enough for Alfred Hitchcock and North by Northwest. More of that. Or, if that doesn’t work, why not re-create medieval London or modern Cairo or 24th-century Tokyo via green screen? Los Angeles has plenty of those.
How do you apply a tariff to a movie, anyway?
Great question. And one for which we have yet to receive an answer. A U.S. tariff on, say, avocados means it costs a set percentage to bring avocados into the United States. But where would a film tariff be applied? On the entire production? On the portion made outside the United States? Would it kick in when the film was released to theaters or when a series premiered on television? Will hiring Hugh Jackman cost more than casting, say, Matt Damon in the same role? It’s almost as if this is more of a whim that sounded good in the moment but falls apart upon closer inspection.
So productions can avoid these tariffs simply by shooting in the U.S.?
Probably not. If these proposed tariffs also apply to postproduction, that means everything must be filmed and finished within the U.S. to avoid the tariffs. So Sinners, though shot on location in Louisiana, would not have been able to outsource its special effects to Australia’s Rising Sun Pictures. On the face of it, sure, that too would mean more work for American effects artists, but an all-domestic version of Sinners might have proved considerably more expensive than the mostly domestic version. Also, directors sometimes choose to work with international companies for artistic reasons. A post-tariff Sinners might not have matched writer-director Ryan Coogler’s vision, assuming Coogler could have made it at all.
But is making the U.S. film industry more economically robust and helping U.S. workers find jobs within it really what Trump’s on about?
Yes, but there’s more. Trump’s Truth Social post is easy enough to follow at first. The claim that “The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death” is debatable but, as discussed above, there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But things get murky and weird after that opening salvo.
Trump continues: “This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!” So, not only are other countries offering more attractive packages to American productions to make movies abroad, they are, according to Trump, conspiring to do this. And what are we getting in return? Movies filled with anti-American messages.
Trump provides no explanation of this, but presumably his concern is aligned with those of organizations like the Media Research Center, a right-wing group that bills itself as “America’s Media Watchdog.” Last year, the MRC solicited a petition that accused Hollywood of “constantly attack[ing] American traditions, culture, and heritage” by vilifying business, pushing “pro-LGBTQ story lines,” and disparaging Christianity. Trump’s reference to “messaging and propaganda” could be the first attack on what Hollywood is making in addition to where it’s making it. If that sounds paranoid, please check out, for starters, Trump’s plans for the Smithsonian. If Trump wants to see more of America on screen, it’s safe to assume he has a particular vision of America in mind.
Trump is talking about “the Movie Industry in America.” Does he mean television, too?
Let’s assume, yes, since the two industries are intertwined. Also, thinking about it any other way is even more headache-inducing. On the other hand, Newsom’s response makes no mention of television, either. Maybe it’s assumed they’ll be bundled together. Maybe both ideas are, in their current form, kind of half-assed.
Isn’t it also possible to interpret these potential tariffs as targeting international films?
It certainly is. Trump specifically mentions “any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.” International films are such a small part of the American box office it would be tempting to dismiss this as poor phrasing. Surely Trump doesn’t care about imposing a tariff on the latest Hirokazu Kore-eda or Audrey Diwan movies, right? But Trump’s on the record as disliking foreign films. Or at least one foreign film, Parasite, which he disparaged in 2020 after the Bong Joon-ho film won multiple Oscars, including Best Picture. “We’ve got enough problems with South Korea with trade,” Trump told a crowd of rally attendees. “On top of that, they give them best movie of the year. Was it good? I don’t know.” It’s probably safe to assume his distaste extends to other films with subtitles and foreign accents. A 100 percent tariff would make the already less-than-sure-thing business of acquiring and distributing foreign films look daunting, if not impossible.
What would a worst-case scenario look like?
At this point it’s not clear what, if anything, will come of this. But given Trump’s ability to put sweeping, impractical plans in motion with varying degrees of success, it’s probably safe to assume something will happen. Follow-up has thus far been limited to White House spokesman Kush Desai saying that “no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made” and that “the Administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump’s directive to safeguard our country’s national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again.” (MHGA? Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.)
It’s worth considering resistance within the entertainment business, where conservatives are outliers and outspoken MAGA supporters like Voight and fellow “ambassadors” Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone are truly rare. It’s hard to imagine too many within the film and TV industry being eager to work with Trump, which might explain why the on-the-record response to this idea has been pretty quiet, apart from a vaguely worded message from a SAG-AFTRA rep expressing an interest in working toward “common goals.”
But let’s imagine that Making Hollywood Great Again means making good on all the changes suggested by Trump’s Sunday night announcement. For starters, we’d see more movies made and set in America. Movies would also likely be scaled up in size but produced in lesser volume. In this top-heavy world, the big studio productions that already dominate the release schedule would be more likely to be made than midsize movies that traditionally film abroad or independent films that depend on international coproductions to make their budgets work. THR cites The Brutalist—a coproduction between U.S., Hungarian, and British companies that was partly filmed abroad and took advantage of tax and production incentives—as a recent example of everything that couldn’t happen under these tariffs. Foreign films and series would dry up. That means your chances of seeing a new Claire Denis movie would narrow, but it would also likely make it harder for the next Squid Game or Babylon Berlin to find an American audience, assuming this tariff also applies to streaming services.
Finally, what we watch would also likely make a shift to the right. It’s worth treating Trump’s talk of “messaging” as the opening of a new front in the culture wars. Operating under these conditions would likely mean Hollywood would find it much easier to make MAGA-friendly movies and shows than anything the administration could consider “propaganda” against the United States. Trump, it should be remembered, has threatened Comcast with paying a “BIG price” because he doesn’t like Seth Meyers, and the president also recently wreaked havoc at 60 Minutes by demanding an apology for a 2020 interview. Tariffs could mean the government wouldn’t even need to censor what it didn’t like. There’s no need to suppress what never gets made.
Of course, it could all come to nothing, especially if it becomes apparent that imposing tariffs like these would be as impractical and unwieldy as, say, reopening Alcatraz.
