Tariffs can be damaging to Hollywood's film industry
Tribune News Service
When a country like Armenia sends a film out into the world, it's not just art. It's a way to preserve memory, to reach a scattered diaspora. Each film offers the world stories that might otherwise be forgotten. So when President Trump proposes a 100% tariff on all films 'produced in foreign lands,' the damage isn't limited to foreign competitors or outsourcing studios. It threatens to shut out small nations like Armenia, for whom cinema is a lifeline. The proposal hasn't taken effect — yet. But July 9 marked a turning point in Trump's broader tariff agenda, with a deadline for reimposing sweeping trade penalties on countries deemed 'unfair.' While the situation for films remains unclear, the proposal alone has done damage and continues to haunt the industry. The tariff idea arises from the worldview that treats international exchange as a threat — and cultural expression as just another import to tax.
Take 'Amerikatsi' (2022), the extraordinary recent movie by Emmy-winning actor and director Michael A. Goorjian. Inspired by his grandfather's escape from the Armenian genocide — smuggled across the ocean in a crate — the project is not just a movie; it's a universal story rooted in the Armenian experience, made possible by international collaboration and driven by a deep personal mission. Goorjian filmed it in Armenia with local crews, including people who, months later, would find themselves on the front lines of war. One was killed. Others were injured. Still, they sent him videos from the trenches saying all they wanted was to return to the set. That is the spirit a tariff like this would crush.
Armenia is a democracy in a dangerous neighborhood. Its history is riddled with trauma — genocide, war, occupation — and its present is haunted by threats from neighboring authoritarian regimes. But even as bombs fall and borders close, its people create. Films like 'Aurora's Sunrise' (2022) and ' Should the Wind Drop' (2020) carry voices across oceans, turning pain into poetry, history into cinema. These films don't rely on wide releases. They depend on arthouses, festivals, streamers and distributors with the courage and curiosity to take a chance. A 100% tariff would devastate that.
Indeed, the ripple effects of such a tariff would upend the entire global film ecosystem. Modern cinema is inherently international: A Georgian director might work with a French editor, an American actor and a German financier.
So sure, many American films use crew and facilities in Canada. But international co-productions are a growing cornerstone of the global film industry, particularly in Europe. Belgium produces up to 72% of its films in partnership with foreign nations, often France. Other notable co-production leaders include Luxembourg (45% with France), Slovakia (38% with Czechia) and Switzerland (31% with France). These partnerships are often driven by shared language, which is why the US is also frequently involved in co-productions with Britain as well as Canada. Israel too has leaned into this model, using agreements with countries such as France, Germany and Canada to gain access to international audiences and funding mechanisms.
The US government cannot unmake this system and should not try to do so. To penalise 'foreign-made' films is to punish Americans too — artists, producers and distributors who thrive on collaboration. You can't build a wall around storytelling. Supporters of the tariff argue it protects American workers. But Hollywood is already one of the most globalised industries on Earth, and the idea that it suffers from too many foreign films is absurd. If anything, it suffers from too few. The result of this policy won't be a thriving domestic market — but a quieter, flatter, more parochial one. A landscape where the next 'Amerikatsi' never gets seen, where a generation of Armenian American youth never discovers their history through a movie screen.
If America still wants to lead in the 21st century — not just militarily and economically but morally — it should lead through culture and avoid isolation. Stories like 'Amerikatsi' remind us why that matters. A film that begins with a boy smuggled in a crate across the ocean ends with a message of joy and resilience. That's not just Armenian history — it's American history too. It cannot be separated. Unless we want that kind of storytelling priced out of our cinemas (and off our streaming platforms), we must keep the doors open. For America to turn its back on stories like these would be a betrayal of everything film can be. And it would impoverish American society too. That way lies not greatness but provinciality.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump freezes $584m in funding for California university over Gaza protests
The Trump administration has frozen $584m in federal funding for the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the institution said on Wednesday, after the government reprimanded the university over pro-Palestinian protests. The Trump administration has threatened to cut federal funds for universities over pro-Palestinian protests against U.S. ally Israel's war in Gaza. The government alleges universities, including UCLA, allowed antisemitism during the protests. Large demonstrations took place at UCLA last year. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say the government wrongly equates their criticism of Israel's military assault inGaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism, and their advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for extremism. - Reporting by Reuters

Middle East Eye
7 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump administration reverses new guidelines tying Fema funds to Israeli boycotts
A clause in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (Fema) guidelines threatening US states and territories that boycott Israel with the denial of federal funds for natural disaster preparation was discreetly removed from its terms and conditions directives on Monday after backlash. The change in status came after media reports on Monday explained how funding was conditional on states following Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conditions laid out in April. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) announced on Friday it was making nearly $1bn available to states to protect themselves from natural disasters, such as floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and fires, as well as terrorist attacks and cyber disruptions. Read more: Trump administration reverses new guidelines tying Fema funds to Israeli boycotts


Gulf Today
8 hours ago
- Gulf Today
A ray of housing hope is emerging in Washington
Matthew Yglesias, Tribune News Service Housing affordability is a key issue for the American consumer on which the Trump administration has done nothing useful. From tariffs on construction material to higher budget deficits driving up interest rates to deporting building trades workers, virtually every policy lever is being thrown in an anti-supply direction. At the same time, good news may be coming from Congress where last week the powerful Senate Banking Committee passed an important package of bipartisan housing reforms with unanimous support. The only fly in the ointment is that the package is so ambitious, and the emergence of consensus between Republican Chairman Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren so unexpected, that little groundwork has been laid for advancing these ideas in the House. But if champions for these ideas can be found in the lower house, Congress would have the opportunity to get something critical done on the long-neglected issue of federal housing policy. One particular aspect of the package that I've been following for years is the somewhat obscure topic of chassis requirements for manufactured homes. Most aspects of housing policy are state and local in nature, but since the 1970s the federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, has been the primary regulatory of houses that are built in factories and transported to their ultimate destination. The process of transporting these 'trailers' generally requires them to have an attached chassis that allows them to be transferred from the factory to their destination. But HUD, for no particularly good reason, requires the chassis to be permanently attached to the structure. This requirement was adopted amidst a boom in the market share of manufactured homes as part of a deliberate regulatory crackdown pushed by traditional homebuilders and affiliated labor interests. The chassis requirement is not single-handedly responsible for the shrinkage of the manufactured housing sector, but it is a big factor as the chassis makes it hard to site trailers on top of basements, hard to engage in architectural innovation, and easy for exclusion-minded local governments to discriminate in favor of stick-built homes. Both Scott and the Biden administration were agreed on the desirability of repealing the chassis rule and promoting a new boom in manufactured housing. But in the previous Congress, Scott paired chassis reform with an effort to roll back some Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations that he felt were unduly squelching the market for entry-level mortgages. Former Senate Banking Chairman Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, strongly objected to Scott's mortgage changes and the whole thing was deadlocked. Brown lost last his Senate seat in November, but that meant he was replaced as top Democrat on the committee by Warren — the CFPB's biggest champion — in a way that made progress seem, if anything, less likely. But rather than continue the deadlock, Warren worked out a deal that includes Scott's proposals on both manufactured housing and mortgages and expands them by some other ideas. One of these is the Build More Housing Near Transit Act long championed by Democratic Rep. Scott Peters of California which would have the Department of Transportation prioritize funding mass transit projects in places that are relaxing zoning requirements to allow dense construction near the stations. Another is the Housing Supply Frameworks Act that would direct HUD to promulgate a set of best practices for supply-friendly local land use planning. The Better Use of Intergovernmental and Local Development for Housing Act (the name makes no sense, but it lets them call it BUILD Housing) and the Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act both streamline National Environmental Policy Act reviews for infill housing, along with a few modifications or the creation of new pro-supply grant programs. A very intriguing development is a small $200 million competitive grant program for local governments that take regulatory action to increase housing supply. This is a notion that has been kicked around in Washington in concept form at least since President Barack Obama's second term but was stymied by, among other things, questions about how to measure compliance. A new Census product based on the agency's Master Address File allows for housing production to be measured at the Census block level for the first time. This administrative improvement makes it possible to take the idea of 'race to the top, but for housing' from concept to legislation. The $200 million isn't enough to radically alter American housing policy, but it will do some good on its own while more importantly allowing advocates to field test the new measurement system and lay the groundwork for more aggressive ideas. If the grant program is a small carrot, Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana worked together on a provision that would wield Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) as a stick by depriving high-priced communities that stymie new housing of their federal grant money. For years now, even the most YIMBY-minded Republicans have tended to shy away from the federalism implications of conditioning federal grants on zoning changes. CDBG is perhaps an easier program for them to get to yes on since it primarily goes to urban areas where Democrats live.