Trump's latest tariff agenda: Make movies crap again
One of the latest and most confounding of Trump's plans is an addendum to his crippling tariffs. As part of ongoing trade wars, the Trump administration placed a 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the United States, with China, Mexico and Canada hit with additional tariffs, all of which have fluctuated since Trump postponed his initial proposal. These levies on goods and materials are obnoxious and have the consumer paying the price, but at least they had an identifiable (if petty) reason for existing.
Trump's newest proposed tariff, however, is a real head-scratcher. The president took to his Truth Social platform last week to scream into the void that the 'movie industry in America is dying a very fast death' due to international tax credits encouraging filmmakers and production companies to shoot their movies overseas. 'This is a concerted effort by other nations, and, therefore, a National Security threat,' Trump wrote. He sees international film production as a form of propaganda, saying, 'WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!' To stimulate that dying industry, the president said he'd immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% tariff on 'any and all movies coming into our country that are produced on foreign lands.'
Both Hollywood executives and everyday, average film lovers were sent into a spiral. How would a 100% tariff on something like a film even work, and how would it affect film production? Would the tariff trickle down to the moviegoer's ticket price, like tolls placed on goods such as clothing coming into the United States from international distributors? As is the case with most of his haphazard policy-making, even Trump himself doesn't have a clear answer to these questions. It turns out that this proposed tariff has a good bit of legal and practical red tape holding it back. But if Trump can successfully enact the 100% film tariff in the coming months, he stands to cripple the American film industry much faster and far more severely than any international production ever could. The tariff isn't just an attempt to curb non-domestic film production, it's a deceptive way to hinder filmmaking that doesn't align with his agenda.
But first: deep breath. What the president is proposing in his erratically capitalized rant isn't something that can be immediately enacted like an executive order, at least in most cases. Historically, Congress had the power to oversee and implement tariffs. Over the decades, some of that power was diverted to the president, especially in trade cases designated threats to national security. That would explain why Trump specifically called internationally produced films an affront to our domestic security, despite a total lack of sound reasoning or defense to that point. However, quick action is often legally untested and could conceivably result in a lawsuit from within the film industry to make the 100% tariff a judicial matter, meaning it would be out of Trump's control.
That might explain why, when pressed about his film tariff, Trump dodged a firm answer about what the fees were specifically intended to do and how they would be enforced. 'Other nations have been stealing the movie-making capabilities from the United States,' he yelled to CNN as an Air Force One chopper revved behind him. 'Hollywood is being destroyed. Now, you have a grossly incompetent governor [Gavin Newsom] who allowed that to happen. So I'm not just blaming other nations . . . If they're not willing to make a movie inside the United States, then we should have a tariff on movies that come in. And not only that, governments are actually giving big money. They're supporting them financially. That's sort of a threat to our country in a sense.'
Squeezed by reporters, Trump said that he would do research and personally ask Hollywood studios if they agree to his tariff proposal. 'I want to make sure that they're happy with it, because we're all about jobs,' Trump told reporters. What looked like it might spell trouble for an already-flailing industry quickly turned out to be little more than big talk, at least for now. The World Trade Organization has a moratorium on digital goods until 2026, and films would presumably fall into that category. Whether Trump could use the law citing reasons of national security to implement a tariff on films is another question entirely, given that the full text of that specific written law excludes films, publications and artwork.Now that some of the fear-mongering dust has settled, Trump's likelier intentions are in clearer view. The president and his designated team of Hollywood 'special ambassadors' Jon Voight, Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone are seeking ways to bolster the American film industry after a major and swift economic downturn over the first half of the decade. COVID lockdowns at the top of the 2020s buckled the film industry and sent more domestic productions overseas. Recent tentpole blockbusters like 'Wicked' and 'Deadpool & Wolverine' were shot internationally, and many major American studios have production hubs in cities like London and Vancouver. Countries outside the United States have found that introducing a wealth of production incentives for American films can attract filmmakers looking to cut costs while bolstering the local film and television production sectors. Put simply, international production benefits other countries as much as it benefits American filmmakers, and figures show that the number of incentivized productions overseas is way up. It's not exactly inconceivable that Trump would want to keep productions local if he is, as he says, 'all about jobs.'
But this isn't just about jobs, it's about the right kinds of jobs — and therefore, the right kinds of films. Trump has had a bee in his incontinence diapers ever since Bong Joon-ho's 'Parasite' won the Oscar for best picture in 2020. Trump criticized the win at the time, saying, 'What the hell was that all about? We've got enough problems with South Korea with trade, on top of it they give it the best movie of the year? Let's get 'Gone with the Wind' back, please.' Notably, Trump cited international trade while he spoke about 'Parasite,' as both media and trade have been converging objects of the president's skewed, sickening affection for some time.
Now, Trump is grasping at straws to do what he can to hinder the current state of American filmmaking. Trump and his special Hollywood ambassadors could develop a national tax incentive program of their own to encourage economic stimulus in the domestic filmmaking sector, but that seems like a less likely option than the president's continued focus on what he already sees as an assault on American security.
If Trump successfully implements his proposed 100% tariff, it would effectively bludgeon the international sales market for small and mid-budget titles at festivals like Cannes, where the industry is convening this week. If these movies can't sell to American distributors due to a massive tariff, an equally colossal section of the potential money-spending audience is removed from the equation. In that case, even internationally shot, American-made movies without a large enough budget to recoup the cost of a tariff would not get made at all. We'd quickly see the American film industry become completely reliant on big-budget blockbusters. In a time when small-to-mid-budget films are already struggling, that incredibly important section of filmmaking — the kind that typically produces the most interesting, intriguing, important art — would be the first to go.
But the proposed tariff isn't just a boneheaded move that would destroy small-budget filmmaking, it's a covert way for Trump to keep undermining and disabling state funding for progressive noncommercial filmmaking and art. Early in May, the Trump administration terminated dozens of publicly funded arts grants that were due to be paid out, citing that the recipients 'did not align' with the president's priorities. Many fear the National Endowment for the Arts, the federal agency that funds and supports independent artists and filmmakers, could be next.
Given that Trump is going after PBS, which has a long history of airing 'controversial' and 'blasphemous' NEA-sponsored art like Marlon Riggs' 1989 video essay 'Tongues Untied,' the pipeline is easy to follow. Those trying to make culturally significant, noncommercial art with public grants are having their funding yanked away in favor of work that 'celebrates America's greatness.' They have no chance to become commercial filmmakers like those awarded public grants in other countries. And with no domestic incentive for international filmmakers to produce work in the United States, no publicly funded grants for up-and-coming artists, and a potential tariff lopping off internationally produced American films, the artistic side of filmmaking dies. All that's left would be shoddy, state-sponsored movies promoting conservative values and monotonous, crash-bang-boom blockbusters. I don't know about you, but I'd say that's a far more bleak state of filmmaking than some American productions scoring a tax break for filming in Italy. Trump's latest move might not have the fate of the planet hanging in the balance — as Ralphie briefly thought in 'A Christmas Story' — but the fate of movie-making very well might.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill Maher Knows Trump's Losing 'Credibility' When These Supporters Smell ‘Bulls**t'
Bill Maher weighed in on President Donald Trump losing control over a particular section of his MAGA fanbase amid the Jeffrey Epstein scandal during his Friday night opening monologue on 'Real Time With Bill Maher.' 'The interesting part of this is that Trump's QAnon base, who are always about the pedophiles — oh boy, are they serious about the pedophiles — they may be turning on Trump on this one,' Maher said. 'They really wanna see what's in these files.' Trump and his administration have been embroiled in controversy and backlash from his supporters for weeks following the Department of Justice's memo stating Epstein died by suicide in prisonand did not have a so-called 'client list.' 'Trump was hyping the Epstein files for so long. This was the conspiracy that we had to get to the bottom of, and now his horrible creation has turned on him,' Maher said. 'It's like if Elon Musk got run over by a Cybertruck.' For weeks, the president has provided conflicting information about his friendship with Epstein during his attempts to distance himself from the disgraced financier and sex trafficker. On Friday, Maher suggested the president knows he's losing 'credibility' when even his QAnon supporters, 'the people who believe in chemtrails and Jewish space lasers and [that] the Democrats eat babies,' are turning on him. 'When that crowd says, 'I smell bullshit,' you're in trouble,' Maher told a laughing audience. Related... Bill Maher Scoffs At 'No Kings' Protests, Even Though Trump 'Is Acting A Little King-Like' Bill Maher Unveils New Trump-Musk 'Couple Name' As Their Bromance Combusts Bill Maher Blames Diddy Accuser For Not Coming Forward Sooner
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
TikTok can shape America's next generation and Beijing knows it
If Washington doesn't act urgently, content pushed by TikTok and consumed by young Americans will result in future U.S. leaders unwittingly parroting China's talking points, advocating warped views and, most dangerously, acting in ways that are in Beijing's interests but undermine U.S. national security. There is admittedly no 'smoking gun,' but TikTok represents a highly plausible vector of intelligence collection. ByteDance, TikTok's parent firm, claims it is committed to U.S. national security, but is legally bound to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party. The People's Republic of China almost certainly uses TikTok, at a minimum, as a collection platform to monitor public opinion. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. and TikTok agreed in January 2023 to maintain all U.S. data within the U.S., but there are concerning reports of leaks. With 170 million U.S. users, TikTok provides Beijing with real-time, granular insight into American public opinion. That real-time data collection would prove enormously useful, for instance, in assessing U.S. willingness to fight in a hypothetical conflict over Taiwan. But the challenge from TikTok with America's youth is not just collection, but influence. Early evidence suggests this is already underway. A Rutgers study found TikTok suppressed unfavorable accounts of sensitive topics, including Tibet, Tiananmen Square, Uyghur rights and Xinjiang. 'Heavy' users expressed elevated positive attitudes toward China's human rights record and greater interest in traveling to China. Given that the company's black box algorithm thwarts independent verification, we likely have seen only the tip of the iceberg of Beijing's efforts to sway the U.S. public. The algorithm could convulse U.S. domestic politics by sowing discord and highlighting divisions, an outcome that serves Beijing's interest in undermining U.S. cohesion and painting D.C. as an unreliable partner. Indeed, rather than bolstering one candidate or another, TikTok may act as an anti-incumbent tool. In the 2024 election, TikTok contributed to President Biden's low approval ratings, according to one Democratic strategist. In that election, President Trump's support among 18-29-year-olds, which disproportionately comprises TikTok's user base, rose by seven points from 2020. And yet, by April, only three months into office, Trump's support among young people has declined markedly — by up to 27 points. While there are admittedly many variables at play, TikTok can amplify alienation and short-term sentiment swings. Whatever one's politics, it's dangerous for China to retain levers that can subtly shape American public opinion, especially by amplifying dissatisfaction. It's worth noting that as Beijing uses tools to manipulate the U.S. public, especially its youth, it's taking meaningful steps to protect its own young people. Douyin, the version of TikTok used in China and also owned by ByteDance, is required by authorities to enforce a 'youth mode,' limiting users under 14 to app usage for just 40 minutes a day. It also locks them out between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily. The contrast is stark: China exports attention-fracturing content while shielding its own youth from it. China's use of TikTok may allow it to influence mass and elite opinion. And in fact, TikTok may be uniquely effective at influencing elite views, by enabling microtargeting. Given TikTok's effectiveness and deniability, as well as Beijing's determination to supplant the United States, Chinese security services are likely tweaking TikTok's algorithms to micro-target key users. Chinese security services can directly shape TikTok's algorithm — rather than merely exploit one built by others — giving it a deniable, end-to-end influence over what users see. Crucially, any elite-focused information operation via TikTok would be even more difficult to detect in the unclassified domain than efforts to shape mass public opinion because of how narrow and precise the targeting would be. For far too long, U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle have failed to take action against the platform. And the reported decision by President Trump to tell U.S. companies they can ignore the law barring American companies from engaging with TikTok represents a new and immediate danger to U.S. national and economic security. At a minimum, it is imperative to ensure the U.S. is not allowing companies or individuals to engage with TikTok so long as its algorithm is controlled by a Beijing-linked company. But U.S. policymakers need to go even further and consider, for example, more ambitious measures such as national limits on short-video screen time for minors. The status quo is incomprehensible and dangerous: Young Americans are being asked to unwittingly face off against an algorithm that may be a tool of Chinese intelligence services. Allowing this dynamic to persist risks eroding the cognitive, civic and strategic foundations of American leadership. Jonathan Panikoff is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center and the former director of the Investment Security Group, overseeing the intelligence community's CFIUS efforts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Joseph Webster is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and editor of the independent China-Russia Report.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Study Shows American Fashion Firms Unilaterally Challenged by Trade Upheaval, Tariffs
America's trade policies—and the uncertainty surrounding the forthcoming tariffs—are by far the biggest anxiety drivers keeping fashion executives tossing and turning each night. That's according to the U.S. Fashion Industry Association's (USFIA) 2025 benchmarking study, released this week. Of 25 leading apparel brands and retailers (most with 1,000 or more employees) surveyed from April through June, 100 percent said the country's protectionist stance on trade and the shaky future of global relationships were the biggest challenges to their businesses. More from Sourcing Journal Resetting Asia's Apparel Map With a New World Sourcing Order Trump Announces Dozens of New Reciprocal Tariff Rates Trump Tariffs Face Sharp Scrutiny in Appeals Court The finding is perhaps unsurprising, given the respite-less rollercoaster of tariff talk that's taken over screens and airwaves in recent months. The wide-ranging impacts of President Donald Trump's tariff regime, including 'Inflation and economic outlook in the U.S. economy' and 'Increasing production or sourcing cost' were cited by 80 percent and nearly 50 percent of executives, respectively, as the biggest hurdles facing their companies this year. More than half (52 percent) said policy uncertainty in foreign countries—including potential retaliatory measures against the U.S.—were a problem. Six months ago, some decision-makers may have had the prescience to answer similarly. But today, the administration's trade policies, however shaky and changeable, are having real-world impacts. More than 70 percent of surveyed companies said higher tariffs had increased their sourcing costs, thinned profit margins and prompted them to raise prices. As a result, about half reported sales slumps, and 22 percent said they'd been forced into layoff mode. All respondents surveyed told USFIA that they expect to incur higher tariff and trade barrier costs this year, with 80 percent characterizing the expected increases as 'substantial.' Those costs have rippled across supply chains, with about 70 percent of firms reporting that they've canceled or delayed orders, and 40 percent copping to the fact that they've skimped on investments once considered critical, like sustainability and product innovation. With these conditions as a backdrop, just 65 percent of respondents said they feel optimistic about the next five years, compared to 75 percent who answered similarly in 2024. But companies are taking action—namely, to diversify their sourcing bases. More than 80 percent said they plan to broaden their portfolios, opening up procurement to different regions. Companies are sourcing from more countries—altogether, the firms named 46 of them—and 60 percent of large firms reported sourcing from 10 countries or more, a marked increase from the 45 percent to 55 percent seen in 2022 and 2023. The beneficiaries of that business are mostly Asian nations, and the region has become an even more dominant sourcing leader in 2025. All survey respondents said they'd turned to Vietnam over the past year (up from 90 percent in 2024), as well as Cambodia (up from 75 percent to 94 percent), Bangladesh (up from 86 percent to 88 percent), Indonesia (up from 75 percent to 77 percent), and Sri Lanka (up from 39 percent to 53 percent). 'The survey results indicate that sourcing decisions are becoming ever more complex. Fashion companies must balance multiple factors when selecting vendors—ranging from cost and speed to market, to flexibility, agility, compliance with environmental and social responsibility regulations, and even the origin of textile raw materials,' Dr. Sheng Lu, professor of fashion and apparel studies at the University of Delaware, told Sourcing Journal. 'Now, in addition to all these considerations, fashion companies must also assess whether their sourcing base could suddenly be subject to additional tariff restrictions,' Lu, who collaborated with USFIA on the study, added. Despite recent trade deal announcements filtering out of the White House, 'U.S. fashion companies still struggle with a high level of uncertainty due to ambiguities in the interpretation of the tariff rates,' he said. 'For example, it is still unclear whether the announced tariff rates already include the most-favored nation tariff rates, which averaged 16 percent for apparel products.' In other words, it's yet to be seen whether the tariff rates agreed upon this week will be stacked upon existing duties. Beyond that, 'fashion companies are closely watching whether they will encounter any new rules of origin requirements in the upcoming trade deals'—a possibility hinted by the Trump administration's recent letters to trade partners, which stipulate that 'transshipment' will garner penalties in the form of added duties. While trade negotiations are still in flux with China, American fashion companies remain deeply concerned about the future of the relationship, and that's one of the key reasons for their laser focus on diversification. All study respondents said they still source from the apparel production superpower, but a record 60 percent reported sourcing less than 10 percent of their assortment from China—a 20-percent jump from last year. China no longer represents a top apparel supplier for about 70 percent of those surveyed, in fact. And despite some reason for hopefulness surrounding an extension of the May trade truce between the U.S. and Asia's largest producer, more than 80 percent of companies queried plan to draw down even further on apparel sourcing from China through 2027. Companies aren't just running from a questionable trade relationship—they're also probing new markets that might offer better benefits. About 72 percent of those surveyed said they plan to seek out producers in countries with free trade agreements (FTAs) or trade preference programs that render their imports duty free. USFIA president Julie Hughes said that could spell opportunity for the Americas. 'Absolutely, sourcing execs are still hoping to expand Western Hemisphere sourcing,' she said, calling it 'one of the important strategies to respond to the tariffs.' More than half of the companies asked said they intend to expand sourcing from Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) countries over the course of the next two years, and slightly fewer plan to source more from Mexico. Hughes said USFIA is committed long term to helping brands and retailers make such commitment, though 'the survey shows that there are many different products where sourcing executives are still looking for more diversified inputs and production.' More than 62 percent said that Mexico has an 'urgent need to improve production capacity' for essential components like zippers, buttons and threads, while more than 66 percent said the same about CAFTA-DR and dresses, cotton yarns and fabrics. 'U.S. companies are looking for China alternatives which currently offer a great variety of products to the U.S. market, including many sophisticated apparel items like outerwear and dresses,' Lu added. 'However, the U.S. and Western Hemisphere countries mainly make basic, simple items like T-shirts.' Lu said he worries that Trump's recent threats against Mexico only served as a reminder to companies that nearshoring doesn't necessarily reduce sourcing risks. 'Even worse, it could suspend or delay critical new investments that could help increase the production capacity in the Western Hemisphere,' he said. Meanwhile, there's scant evidence that the tariff regime is driving up an appetite for Made in the USA. 'Contrary to common perception, the results do not indicate that the tariff policy so far has effectively supported or encouraged more textiles and apparel production in the U.S.,' Lu added. Just 17 percent of survey takers said they plan to source more apparel and textiles domestically. 'I think that reflects the fact that there is not the capacity for apparel production in the U.S. and fashion companies will be watching to see if the tariffs will be an incentive for more investment,' Hughes opined. Lu elaborated on the point, saying, 'Just as U.S. trading partners are uncertain about the tariff rates they would face, so too are U.S. textile and apparel mills. Many domestic factories are in a 'wait and see' mode, holding back on making critical investments to expand production due to the lack of a clear policy signal.' Ultimately, the academic believes that higher tariffs on foreign partners could hurt prospects for U.S. apparel and textile makers. 'A U.S. company may manufacture the clothes here, but uses yarns, fabrics, and zippers from other countries,' he said. 'When tariffs drive up the cost of these raw materials, it reduces the price competitiveness of apparel 'Made in the USA.'' And with shoppers already stretching to cover necessities, price increases on American-made clothing will make those options less enticing. Examining the situation from a 3,000-foot view, both Hughes and Lu believe the trade upheaval of recent months could have lasting implications for apparel sourcing. 'I think we need to expect the tariff uncertainty will pay a role for a while,' Hughes said. 'Even if there is more clarity on Friday, the fact is that the trade 'deals' that have been announced don't have the details in writing and could still be changed. Plus, there still are sectoral reviews and other trade actions that could disrupt sourcing.' Lu pointed to two potential indicators to watch over the coming months. 'One is the survival of small and medium-sized fashion companies in the market. Unlike large corporations, SMEs have fewer resources to mitigate the tariff impacts and often face more challenges to diversify their sourcing base,' he said. 'As a result, consumers may struggle with fewer products and higher prices in the market.' He's also eager to see whether U.S. fashion companies, which have said they intend to strengthen relationships with key vendors as a strategic move, will do right by the players in their value chains as trade policies continue to shift. 'There is a growing public call for U.S. fashion companies to provide more support and resources to their suppliers and workers in developing countries—many of whom are struggling with the uncertainty and fluctuation of sourcing orders,' Lu said. 'At the end of the day, apparel sourcing and trade are about people—on both ends of the supply chain.' Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
