SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
entertainment industry
Film Insiders Say Trump's Proposed Hollywood Tariffs Would 'Destroy' Entertainment Industry
"We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on," said one film professional. "Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
May 05, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement via social media Sunday evening that he would "begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff" on films produced in foreign countries was met with confusion and shock in the U.S. entertainment industry and abroad, with filmmakers cautioning that such extreme levies would render many productions impossible and do nothing to save what the president called the "dying" movie industry.
On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump took issue with "incentives" that have pushed filmmakers to shoot projects outside of the U.S., not only saying that the industry centered in Hollywood is "being devastated" but also suggesting that simply traveling to other countries to produce films leads to foreign "propaganda" being embedded in the final products.
"This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat," said Trump. "It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!"
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested the administration is moving to implement the president's plan, writing, "We're on it" in his own social media post.
While the vast majority of U.S. films are already produced mainly in the U.S.—providing jobs to actors, editors, and other production staff—many major studios including streaming giants Amazon and Netflix have brought their production shoots to cities like Toronto and Dublin, where local leaders have offered large tax breaks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is currently addressing the effects those foreign tax incentives have had on working film professionals in Southern California—including makeup artists, camera operators, electricians, and other middle-class workers—by pushing for a tax credit for studios to film locally. The state Legislature is currently considering that proposal.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going."
But by "instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," film industry veterans said Trump would not succeed in bringing production jobs back to the United States—but would rather make all but the biggest budget films impossible to produce.
"This is NOT the effect this is going to have," one industry professional told Deadline. "It will make low- and mid-level productions completely unproducable, hence destroying many jobs from producer assistants to writers to post-production. Further, it will lessen the amount of big budget content created because the studios won't be able to make as much because the cost of production will be more."
An official at a top U.S. film company that produces movies both domestically and internationally told Deadline that international film distributors will be less likely to buy U.S. films under Trump's new tariff plan.
"It affects domestic distribution deals but it also impacts equity players who have money in movies because their films will suddenly be worth less money," they said. "We won't be able to make movies for the same budgets, actors won't get paid the same fees, and the list goes on. Simply, it would destroy the independent sector."
Exactly how the proposed policy would be implemented was unclear from Trump's social media post, but U.K.-based producer told Deadline that "leading independent distributors would all be out of business if it's them" who have to pay the tariffs.
A source close to the White House told Politico that the tariff policy originated with actor Jon Voight, a strong supporter of Trump who—along with Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone—has been named one of Trump's "special ambassadors" to Hollywood.
Deadline reported last week that Voight was meeting with studios and union representatives in Hollywood to discuss a plan to revive the film industry, with "a federal tax incentive" expected to be a main component.
Voight's fellow ambassador, Gibson, is one Hollywood player who could be directly impacted by Trump's proposed tariffs; his film, a sequel to The Passion of the Christ, is scheduled to begin filming in Italy this summer.
"Putting a tariff on movies shot outside the U.S. will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theater and then... well you see where this is going," wrote producer Randy Greenberg in a post on LinkedIn after Trump announced his plan.
The Washington Post reported that Trump could rely on a provision of a 1962 trade law that he has used in the past to impose tariffs on goods; the law gives the Commerce Department 270 days to complete an investigation into alleged national security threats created by certain imports.
"Other nations have stolen our movie industry," Trump told reporters on Sunday. "If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in."
At The Guardian, film editor Andrew Pulver wrote that Trump's plan appears aimed at destroying "the international film industry":
The effect of any tariff is likely to be dramatic. Recent figures from the British Film Institute (BFI) show that in 2024 £4.8 billion ($6.37 billion) of production spend on film and high-end TV in the U.K. came from international sources, 86% of the total spent on film and TV made in Britain. In Australia, the film industry stands to lose up to AUS $767 million. A program of studio building in the U.K., designed to increase capacity and therefore revenue, is likely to feel the chill almost immediately. And the effect on the domestic industry in the U.S. is forecast to be adverse, as production costs rise without the injection of overseas tax incentives, with mid-level projects potentially wiped out.
Despite Trump's claim that the industry is "dying," according to the Motion Picture Association's latest economic impact report, the U.S. film industry had a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023 and $22.6 billion in exports.
An executive at a U.S. distribution company expressed hope to Deadline that Trump's threat would encourage "desperately needed increases in U.S. state tax incentives being implemented ASAP."
"Can't see his target here," they said, "other than confusion and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Nightmare Scenario': Actors Union Rejects Studio Offer Over AI 'Zombie Clause'
"It's the cheap, dark future studios want," said one television writer. "Right now, SAG-AFTRA is the only thing preventing it. And they're fighting like hell."
Nov 07, 2023
Negotiations between the world's largest labor union representing screen performers and some of the most powerful studios in Hollywood were set to resume on Tuesday after union negotiators announced that they had rejected the companies' "last, best, and final offer," arguing that the terms did not include sufficient artificial intelligence protections for highly-paid actors.
The latest offer included language that would have cascading negative effects on the entire entertainment industry, said supporters of the ongoing actors' strikes.
The negotiating committee of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), including chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland and union president Fran Drescher, told the union's 160,000 members Monday evening that they were "determined to secure the right deal and thereby bring this strike to an end responsibly." The union began a work stoppage on July 13 after more than a month of negotiations regarding residual pay, AI, and other issues.
The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers' (AMPTP) supposed "final" offer included a requirement that studios and streaming services pay to make AI images with the likeness of highly-paid "Schedule F" performers, who earn more than the minimum for series regulars ($32,000 per TV episode) and feature films ($60,000).
But SAG-AFTRA is also demanding a provision that would require compensation for the re-use of AI scans and one that would require companies to secure consent from a deceased actors' estate to use an AI scan of them.
The language in the AMPTP's offer was derided as the "zombie" clause by television writer David Slack, who called the studios' proposal "a nightmare scenario" that would play out like an episode of the dystopian series Black Mirror.
While the clause pertains to highly paid actors, Slack noted that it would ultimately impact thousands of people who work across the entertainment industry, as the studios' goal appears to be gaining the ability to produce films and television without paying the actors who appear in them.
"The AMPTP's zombie clause also means less money for talent agents and managers—as performers making a good living right now are suddenly scanned once, given one check, and then sent home forever," said Slack. "And who is going to pay the publicists, PR firms, event managers, and press junket journalists for TV and movie premieres—when they start releasing shows where all the 'actors' were either not involved in the 'filming' or are already dead?"
Before the Writers Guild of America secured a deal that was ratified in October, ending the writers' strike after nearly five months, the union also refused to accept an AMPTP offer that was presented as its "best and final."
"The AMPTP tried their 'Last, Best, and Final' trick—and the SAG-AFTRA [negotiating committee] didn't blink," said Slack. "This is how you win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the Academy Awards Tell Us About the Value of Black Work
Feb 28, 2016
What's the value of an Academy Award?
It's a question I've been mulling over ever since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences--the revered gatekeepers of America's film industry--announced the nominees for their 88th Academy Awards ceremony, also known as the Oscars. In a bold feat of tone-deafness (read: overt racism), the Academy chose not to nominate a single Black actor in any of their four acting categories--again.
I wasn't surprised by the Academy's casual racism in refusing to recognize Black performers at this year's ceremony. Hollywood's diversity problems aren't new. The fact that there are still people who blithely question whether Black performances are even worthy of recognition speaks to the existence of pervasive bigotry within the institution. It's why Black people (along with other historically marginalized communities) have banded together to create our own institutions to recognize our work: without celebrations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Image Awards--and yes, even the BET Awards--daring to uplift Black performers in Hollywood, where else could we go to applaud and honor our stars?
What did surprise me was how some high-profile individuals like Helen Mirren, instead of grappling with the issue of the Academy's accountability to Black actors, blamed this year's lack of Black nominees on broader race and power dynamics within the industry. The Academy's lack of racial sensitivity, she argued, is a symptom of a deeply engrained culture of racial bias that disadvantages Black professionals; as a result, one should not read racist intent into the Academy's nomination decisions.
It isn't entirely wrong to deflect blame onto the wider industry. As many have rightly pointed out, industry diversity starts in the boardrooms, where casting and business decisions get made. But in our hurry to write off the Oscars' diversity problems as the logical byproduct of Hollywood's ubiquitous racism, we shouldn't dismiss the Academy's distinct responsibility to recognize Black artists. More than mere pageantry, the Oscars award ceremony represents an issue of economic justice because of its role as a public evaluation of people in the film industry. Neither the Academy nor the Oscars operate in a vacuum; the Oscars are where Hollywood ascribes value to the artistic and cultural experiences that move and define us and, by proxy, the performers who embody these stories.
Moreover, the awards aren't just a competition for cultural value: they double as an assessment tool that helps pick the industry's economic winners and losers--in full view of the adoring public. While mainstream recognition from an institution like the Academy is not necessary to validate the contributions and experiences of Black performers, it still carries significant implications for the economic realities of the movie industry. Because the vast majority of Black artists don't receive the same opportunities for exposure as their white counterparts, they aren't given access to the same springboard that launches other workers in the industry. For the working actor, the value of an Academy Award is concrete: increased exposure to the best directors, casting agents, and managers, combined with greater leverage for higher pay and more favorable working conditions. Even receiving a nomination can make booking the next job and sustaining a career easier.
And as resilient as Black people are--Black entertainers especially--it is not enough for us to create spaces where we validate our work if those spaces do not wield the same access to economic opportunities. Dismantling systemic racism goes hand-in-hand with ending economic inequality, and it's imperative to the liberation of Black people that we tackle them in tandem. And so, we must fight for inclusion in mainstream spaces where our economic futures are at stake and create spaces for Black achievement to be validated in a way that honors and respects us.
The whitewashing of the Academy Awards presents a unique economic challenge to Black performers and other Black workers in the industry. In addition to shaking our fists at the intersecting systems of oppression that permeate Hollywood, we must call equal attention to the Academy's actions--precisely because they speak to a larger ethos for how Black work and Blackness go unrecognized and devalued within the film and more significant entertainment industry.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular