Critics Slam Trump's 100% Tariffs On All Foreign Movies Over 'Dying' Hollywood
He said other countries were stealing American 'movie making capabilities'
Some X users criticized the new tariffs, saying they will only be a burden to American moviegoers
President Donald Trump on Sunday announced 100% tariffs on all foreign movies coming into the United States as he attempts to save what he said was a "dying" American movie industry.
For Trump, the supposed incentive offer of some countries to draw out American filmmakers and studios out of home turf was "a concerted effort" and therefore is "a national security threat," as per his Sunday post on Truth Social. Trump Wants 'Movies Made in America'
The Republican strongman went on to accuse nations recruiting American film talent of engaging in "messaging and propaganda," which is leading Hollywood and the broader American movie industry toward "a very fast death."
He then authorized the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to immediately begin processing the institution of 100% tariffs on "any and all movies coming into our country that are produced in foreign lands."
Speaking with reporters outside the White House later in the day, Trump explained that other nations "have been stealing" the country's "movie making abilities," reiterating that he did "very strong research" to come to such a strong conclusion that the U.S. is now producing very few films.
"Hollywood is being destroyed. You have a grossly incompetent governor that allowed that to happen... Other nations have stolen our movie industry...We should have a tariff on movies that come in...That's sort of a threat to our country in a sense"
- Pres. Trump on movie tariffs pic.twitter.com/C8lm5zMbtf — Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) May 5, 2025 Critics Call Out New Tariffs
Many X users criticized Trump's plan to levy new duties on movies produced outside the country, with most reiterating that the costs will be on the American taxpayer once more.
"This will significantly raise the price of movie tickets and help put movie theaters out of business," wrote podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen.
Trump just announced he is imposing a 100% tariff on 'all movies that are produced in foreign lands.'
This will significantly raise the price of movie tickets and help put movie theaters out of business. pic.twitter.com/Pu8lAj7ky9 — No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) May 5, 2025
American journalist James Surowiecki said no law gives the president the power or authority to impose tariffs on films made overseas, and more importantly, the local film industry's situation is "not an economic emergency."
He urged studios to "immediately sue" if Trump carries on with his plan to impose duties on foreign movies.
There is no law that gives Trump the power to impose tariffs on movies made abroad. It's not an economic emergency. It doesn't constitute a plausible threat to national security. I have no idea if he's really going to do this, but if he does, every studio should immediately sue. https://t.co/b3I7ERr6hi — James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) May 5, 2025
Yashar Ali, another U.S. journalist, noted how many American films are actually filmed in other countries such as Canada and eastern Europe "due to tax incentives and product costs overall."
One user questioned why Trump needed to be "punitive" instead of making counteroffers or better incentives for filmmakers, given how making movies is already expensive as it is.
Trump has yet to address concerns over the impact his tariffs will have on moviegoers and the broader American film industry.
© Copyright IBTimes 2024. All rights reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
19 minutes ago
- DW
Which European countries might send troops to Ukraine? – DW – 08/20/2025
US President Donald Trump is urging EU allies to send ground troops to Ukraine to secure a ceasefire and guarantee security there. Not every European state is prepared to do so though. Following talks about Ukraine in Washington early this week, Western states are working to fine tune the details of the much-discussed "security guarantees" for Ukraine. One important question is how a possible ceasefire could be secured along the more than 1,000-kilometer-long (621 miles) front line in eastern Ukraine. Another is which countries would be prepared to send soldiers to Ukraine? And how many, and with what sort of mandate? US President Donald Trump has spoken positively about supporting security guarantees for Ukraine but has left open exactly what they should look like. He has categorically ruled out the deployment of US troops on the ground in Ukraine. He seems to assume that Germany, France and the UK are prepared to send troops to Ukraine to secure peace, as he told US broadcaster Fox News after the talks in Washington. He suggested that the US would be prepared to provide air support. The German government does not seem to be as far advanced in its decision-making as Trump might like. "Germany's contribution tosecurity guarantees hasnot yet beendetermined and this issue will be decided at the political and military levels," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said on Tuesday. He added that there were still too many uncertainties, for example, regarding further negotiations as well as the contribution of the US and other allies. "This will have to be discussed carefully. And these talks are currently taking place," German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul told DW. "So far Germany and its willingness to take responsibility in this conflict" cannot be described as lacking, he noted. What remains unclear is what mandate any international peacekeeping force might have. Germany's opposition Left Party (Die Linke) has expressed preference for a UN blue helmet deployment instead of a NATO-led mission so as to avoid any direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. Some members of Germany's Social Democrats, who are part of the country's ruling coalition, are also critical about NATO troops being deployed in Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has shown himself to be open to sending a peacekeeping force to Ukraine in principle, but only in the event of a permanent ceasefire. Should this occur, London would be prepared to take a leading role in enforcing security guarantees for Ukraine, Starmer has said. This could also include the deployment of troops to monitor the ceasefire, for example. In February, British newspaper reported on a plan by London that would send 30,000 European troops to police a ceasefire. These would be deployed to guard Ukraine's cities and ports, as well as critical infrastructure such as nuclear power plants, far from the front line. The mission would also rely heavily on technical surveillance. The use of drones, satellites, reconnaissance aircraft and naval patrols in the Black Sea were all possibilities. In a virtual meeting with other leaders on Tuesday, Starmer said that, "Coalition of the Willing planning teams would meet with their US counterparts in the coming days to further strengthen plans to deliver robust security guarantees and prepare for the deployment of a reassurance force if the hostilities ended." French President Emmanuel Macron recently warned against rushing into a deal without safeguards. "This peace must not be rushed and must be backed by solid guarantees, otherwise we will be starting over again," he told French broadcaster TF1. In the past, Macron has not ruled out sending French troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force. In March, he presented a plan to send a "reassurance force" suggesting this might involve "a few thousand troops" per country, which would be stationed in "certain strategic locations" such as Kyiv, Odessa and Lviv. The mission would be defensive in nature, not for direct combat operations, and would act as a deterrent and for stabilization and training. France has already carried out exercises in which conditions in Ukraine were simulated. During the maneuvers, soldiers received training on how to behave in the event of a Russian attack via Belarus. Drone defense, electronic warfare and tactical coordination were also part of the training. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and the Baltic states have also signaled their willingness to participate in a possible peacekeeping force in Ukraine. However other European states are more cautious. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejects the deployment of Polish soldiers, which he says, would be extremely unpopular with the Polish population. Polls say that 85% of Poles reject the deployment of their own soldiers, even for a peacekeeping mission. Hungary and Slovakia are also opposed to the deployment of European troops. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has even described the possible deployment of Western troops as "warmongering." Austria and Italy are also cautious. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is particularly skeptical about the deployment of NATO troops and would prefer a UN-led mission. Meloni has so far avoided making any clear commitments. In any case, nothing will happen without a prior agreement with Russia. But Moscow has so far categorically rejected the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine and there is little indication that would change, even if there are signs that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy could soon meet in person. German Foreign Minister Wadephul remains skeptical. "I would advise that we first wait and see whether there are any talks at all," he told DW. "And secondly, if there are talks, whether there is an agreement that is resilient. And there, we are all waiting for Russia."To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Int'l Business Times
35 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
Trump Raises Pressure On Central Bank, Calls For Fed Governor To Resign
President Donald Trump ramped up pressure on the US central bank Wednesday, calling for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to step down -- after his recent criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not lowering interest rates sooner. "Cook must resign, now!!!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, while sharing a Bloomberg news report on how the Federal Housing Finance Agency's director has called for greater scrutiny of Cook over a pair of mortgages. FHFA director Bill Pulte -- a staunch ally of Trump -- had reportedly written a letter to the US attorney general calling for an investigation of Cook while suggesting that she might have committed a criminal offense. The Trump administration has pursued allegations of mortgage fraud against high-profile Democrats who are seen as political adversaries of the president. It was not immediately clear if such a probe will take place targeting Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the central bank's board. The president is also limited in his ability to remove officials from the central bank. A Supreme Court order recently suggested that Fed officials cannot be taken out of their jobs over policy disagreements, meaning they have to be removed for "cause," which could be interpreted to mean wrongdoing. The US leader's targeting of Cook, who sits on the Fed's rate-setting committee, comes after his repeated broadsides against Powell while the central bank kept the benchmark lending rate unchanged this year. On Tuesday night, Trump again called for a "major rate cut," saying there was "no inflation" and claiming that the Fed's policymaking was harming the housing industry due to elevated mortgage rates. He called Powell "a disaster" in a social media post. Although the US consumer price index, a key inflation gauge, was steady at 2.7 percent in July, it remains higher than it was a few months earlier. Fed officials have been trying to ensure inflation is kept in check -- despite the effects of Trump's sweeping tariffs -- while balancing risks to the labor market as they mull the right time for further rate cuts. Cook took office as a Fed governor in May 2022 and was reappointed to the board in September 2023. She was sworn in later that same month for a term ending in 2038. She has previously served on the Council of Economic Advisers under former president Barack Obama. Earlier this year, Trump suggested that what he called an overly costly renovation of the Fed's headquarters could be a reason to oust Powell, before backing off the threat. Powell's term as Fed chair ends in May 2026.
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
The $42 Billion Broadband Problem: Why America's Internet Fix May Be Missing the Point
In 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with a bold promise: bring high-speed internet to every American household. At the heart of that promise was BEAD, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deploym ent program, a $42.45 billion effort to finally connect the rural and underserved communities left behind by decades of uneven telecom investment. But nearly three years later, the program's progress is being called into question. Not because the funding isn't there, it is. Every U.S. state and territory has received funding, and most have submitted deployment plans. The issue, critics say, lies in how that money is being used. According to a recent estimate, as much as 90% of BEAD funding is currently directed toward fiber-optic buildouts, the gold standard for internet infrastructure, but also one of the most expensive and time-consuming technologies to deploy. In many rural areas, trenching fiber can cost upwards of $50,000 per mile, with some states reporting estimates as high as $77,000 per household. The criticism has been building. In April 2025, over 100 bipartisan state legislators warned that rigid BEAD mandates could "undo years of planning and delay deployment by more than a year." Others have called the program's execution wasteful and needlessly slow, with one California county supervisor noting, "The need is there and the funding is there, but it's just a very inefficient process." "The obsession with fiber is understandable, it's fast, it's reliable, and it's scalable," says Tom Starr, Chairman Emritus and former President of the Broadband Forum and one of the architects behind many of the global standards for broadband deployment. "But insisting on fiber everywhere, no matter the terrain or cost, is like insisting every town needs a subway. It's a one-size-fits-all solution in a country that clearly isn't." Starr also serves as an advisor to Actelis Networks, a company focused on enabling fiber-grade broadband performance over a mix of fiber and existing legacy infrastructure. In an environment where time and funding are limited, this type of hybrid deployment can serve as a valuable complement to fiber, not a replacement, but an accelerator. The company's approach is simple: use fiber where it makes sense, but in places where copper or coaxial cables already exist, such as old telephone lines or MDU (multi-dwelling unit) buildings, amplify and bring to fiber performance what's already there, without replacing the infrastructure. Solutions like Actelis' GL900 and GL800 enable fiber-grade, secure, symmetrical gigabit-speed internet over legacy copper or coax lines, dramatically reducing both the cost and time required to bring a user online. The timing may be right. In June 2025, the NTIA, the federal agency overseeing BEAD, quietly overhauled the program's rules, stripping out its fiber-first preference and requiring states to consider all "reliable broadband technologies" on an equal footing. Under the new "Benefit of the Bargain" policy, state broadband offices must now re-evaluate whether alternative solutions might offer similar performance at lower cost. For companies like Actelis, this is significant. "We've been saying from day one: if the goal is to connect as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, you have to be pragmatic," says Barlev. "BEAD wasn't meant to be a fiber subsidy. It was meant to end the digital divide." The urgency is real. While BEAD planning continues, private-sector providers, including 5G wireless carriers and satellite operators like Starlink, are rapidly signing up customers in unserved regions. According to one analysis, over half of the locations identified as "unserved" in 2022 have since been covered by other programs or private investment, making them inelgible for BEAD funding. That means the remaining households are likely the hardest and most expensive to reach, making the case for flexible, lower-cost solutions even stronger. There's also the issue of equity. When tens of thousands of dollars are spent to bring fiber to a single remote farm, that's money not spent connecting ten homes elsewhere. "Every dollar we overspend is a household that stays offline. We can do better." says Barlev. Still, not everyone is convinced. Some industry groups argue that anything short of full fiber risks entrenching second-class digital infrastructure. But that argument assumes newer automatically means better, and ignores that fiber too, has its challenges. Already back in 2002, an FCC study noted that typical metro fiber networks experience 13 cable cuts per 1,000 miles per year, roughly one cut every four days on a 30,000-mile route, causing hours-long outages and expensive repairs. Fiber also requires skilled splicing and testing, and can degrade with tight bends over time. Meanwhile, copper and coaxial networks have consistently delivered reliable voice and data service for decades, and modern hybrid deployments can now meet or exceed BEAD's own performance standards. More importantly, they can be deployed much faster, bringing service to Americans who might otherwise wait years for fiber. In that context, these hybrid approaches may offer a path forward, not as a compromise, but as a strategy. One that helps communities leap ahead, builds smartly on what already exists, and makes every dollar of BEAD funding go further.
