Newsom wants a federal tax credit to save Hollywood. Why that's a long shot
Shortly after President Trump stunned Hollywood with his call for tariffs on films produced overseas, California Gov. Gavin Newsom waded into the debate with an unexpected offer.
Despite the public enmity between the two, Newsom reached out to the White House in hopes of working together on the creation of a $7.5-billion federal tax incentive to keep more productions in the U.S.
Hollywood insiders have wanted a federal tax incentive program all along. Some publicly cheered Newsom's Monday proposal.
Many lawmakers, including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) and Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), have advocated for a national program to try to put the U.S. on a more equal footing with foreign countries that offer generous incentives.
But such an initiative faces significant obstacles.
It will be a difficult sell to the average American taxpayer, who may not be eager to support an industry viewed as wealthy and politically liberal. It's unclear where funding for the U.S. entertainment industry ranks on a list of ever-growing national priorities.
"I would give it 50/50 at best," Sanjay Sharma, who teaches media and entertainment finance at USC's Marshall School of Business, said of the incentive's odds.
Recently, a coalition of Hollywood unions and industry trade groups — including the Motion Picture Assn. and guilds representing screenwriters, directors and actors — backed the idea of a domestic production incentive. They said the proposal would advance the administration's goal of reshoring American jobs and providing economic growth around the country.
"As Congress undertakes 2025 tax legislation, we urge lawmakers to include a production incentive to support film and television production made by workers in America," the coalition said in a statement.
But with so many competing priorities facing the country, including infrastructure, homelessness and the opioid crisis, lawmakers could face an uphill battle in justifying a vote to effectively subsidize the entertainment industry.
"The political optics on it are going to be very, very difficult," said George Huang, a professor of screenwriting at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. "To most people, [the entertainment industry] seems like a frivolous thing."
Even if a federal film tax incentive were to pass, it's not a guarantee that filming would automatically flow back to the U.S., particularly if other countries chose to increase their own tax credit programs in response, he said.
But such a proposal would provide much-needed support for the entertainment industry, which has been battered in recent years by the effects of the pandemic, the dual writers' and actors' strikes in 2023 and cutbacks in spending by the studios.
The situation has created what leaders call an employment crisis in the film and TV business, particularly in California.
"Right now the industry is teetering," Huang said. "This would go a long way in helping right the ship and putting us back on course to being the capital of the entertainment world.'
A federal tax incentive was part of a proposal from actor Jon Voight, one of Trump's so-called Hollywood ambassadors, and his manager, Steven Paul, who traveled to Mar-a-Lago last weekend to present Trump with a plan on bringing filming jobs back to the U.S.
That proposal included a 10% to 20% federal tax credit that could be added on top of individual state incentives, according to a document published by Deadline.
MPA Chief Executive Charles H. Rivkin also met with Voight last week, according to a source familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment.
After the Deadline story published, Paul cautioned that the document was not meant as a full-on policy proposal.
'The document does not claim to represent collective views of the participating film and television organizations, but serves as a compilation of ideas explored in our discussions on how to strengthen our position as creative leaders,' Paul wrote.
In the meantime, the MPA and others have also lobbied Congress to extend and strengthen Section 181 of the federal tax code to encourage more films to stay in the U.S.
Such a move could boost smaller, independent productions as well as studio films. The section addressing film production was enacted in 2004 amid a recognition that more films were moving to Canada and Europe, and the U.S. needed to remain competitive.
Section 181 allows up to $15 million of qualified film and TV production expenses to be deductible during the year in which they were incurred — or up to $20 million if the project was produced in a low-income area, according to the MPA. Productions can qualify if three-quarters of their labor costs were in the U.S.
The measure allows filmmakers to take the deduction when the cost is incurred, rather than after the film is released. That's important to independent filmmakers who often work on shoestring budgets and can't wait for years to see the benefit.
'If there is a bright side, maybe some of the U.S.-based companies will start taking a look at their domestic production levels,' said Frank Albarella Jr., a partner at KPMG in its media and telecommunications unit. 'Maybe there will be some more federal and state incentives right here in the U.S. That's what people are hoping for.'
Times staff writer Stacy Perman contributed to this report.
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

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


Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California City Terminates 'Divisive' ICE Contract Amid L.A. Protests
Glendale, California, which is located just minutes from Los Angeles where anti-ICE protests erupted this weekend, has decided to end a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold detainees in its jail. In a press release Sunday, city officials said that 'public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive.' 'And while opinions on this issue may vary—the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this City stands for—public safety, local accountability, and trust,' the statement said. Ahead of the unrest in Los Angeles, Glendale had come under some scrutiny over a 2007 contract to house ICE detainees despite a 2018 sanctuary state law ensuring that no local law enforcement resources are used for the purpose of immigration enforcement. In one year, the city collected $6,000 to house ICE detainees, and The Los Angeles Times reported that the city receives $85 per detainee per day. In the last week, two ICE detainees were held in Glendale's detention center, leading to an outcry over the city's potentially unlawful compliance, as the Trump administration has moved to increase the number of daily ICE arrests. But it seems that Glendale will no longer be complicit in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The statement continued, emphasizing that local law enforcement was not responsible for enforcing immigration law, and that the city would remain in compliance with the law. 'The Glendale Police Department has not engaged in immigration enforcement, nor will it do so moving forward,' the statement said. Just a few miles away in downtown Los Angeles, massive anti-ICE protests are still ongoing after immigration authorities arrested at least 44 immigrants Friday. In response to the protests, Donald Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy the National Guard, which has used tear gas, flash grenades, and rubber bullets against the protesters and journalists. The decision on behalf of Glendale is a victory for the protestors, and a clear response to the ongoing direct action in Los Angeles, as well as the Trump administration's escalating efforts to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban: Which countries are on the list? Who's exempt? How are people reacting?
President Trump's sweeping new travel ban went into effect on Monday, barring citizens of 12 countries from visiting the United States and imposing restrictions on those from seven others. In a video message last week announcing the ban, Trump cited national security concerns, claiming that foreigners who were not properly vetted posed a terror risk. "We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States,' Trump said. The president also cited the recent attack in Boulder, Colo., by a man who allegedly shouted 'Free Palestine' and threw Molotov cocktails into a crowd of people calling for the release of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. 'The recent terror attack in Boulder, Colo., has underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' Trump said. 'We don't want them.' The suspect, identified as 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, was arrested and charged with a hate crime. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Soliman is from Egypt and had overstayed a tourist visa. Egypt is not among the countries included in Trump's new travel ban. The ban, which went into effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. ET, prohibits foreign nationals from the following countries from entering the U.S.: Afghanistan Chad Republic of Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Myanmar (Burma) Somalia Sudan Yemen It imposes partial restrictions on foreign nationals from the following countries: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela There are numerous groups of people who are exempt from Trump's new travel ban. They include: Any lawful permanent resident of the United States. Dual citizens, or U.S. citizens who also have citizenship of one of the banned countries. Athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events determined by the U.S. secretary of state. Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders who worked for the U.S. government or its allies during the war in Afghanistan. Children adopted by U.S. citizens. Diplomats and foreign government officials or representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits. Foreign national employees of the U.S. government who have served abroad for at least 15 years, their spouses and children. Individuals with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection to their spouses, children or parents. Iranians belonging to an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution. Refugees who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. before the ban. Those traveling to the United Nations headquarters in New York solely on official business. The announcement angered humanitarian groups working to resettle refugees. 'President Trump's new travel ban is discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel,' Amnesty International USA said in a statement posted to X. 'By targeting people based on their nationality, this ban only spreads disinformation and hate.' "This policy is not about national security,' Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, said in a statement. 'It is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States." 'To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace,' Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac, said in a statement. 'It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold.' The African Union Commission released a statement expressing concern about 'the potential negative impact' of the ban on educational exchange, commerce and engagement and the 'broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades.' The commission said it 'respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned.' The new travel ban is similar to the one Trump imposed in January 2017, his first month in office. That ban restricted travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. (Syria and Iraq are not included on the new list.) It went into effect via an executive order with virtually no notice, causing chaos at airports nationwide and prompting numerous legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a version of it in 2018. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told the New York Times that the new ban is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny. 'They seem to have learned some lessons from the three different rounds of litigation we went through during the first Trump administration,' Vladeck said. 'But a lot will depend upon how it's actually enforced.'