'The Boys' Creator Eric Kripke Warns That Trump's Tariff Plan Could Hurt, Not Help, Hollywood
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump stunned the entertainment industry by proposing a 100 percent tariff on foreign-made films — and potentially television shows — as part of a plan to 'save' what he called a 'dying' Hollywood. So far, the White House says 'no final decisions' have been made on whether it will take effect, but inside the industry, pushback is already mounting.
In a wide-ranging conversation with Katie Couric Media, The Boys creator Eric Kripke challenged the idea, arguing that while Los Angeles may no longer be the dominant production hub, slapping steep levies on international shoots won't bring business back to the U.S. — and may only deepen the industry's challenges. 'What happens if your visual effects company is international? Do you have to pay double for that even if you're making an American picture?' he posited.
Kripke knows what he's talking about. The writer and producer behind long-running series like Supernatural and films like Boogeyman has spent his career navigating the economics of global production — filming in Vancouver, Toronto, and Los Angeles, chasing tax incentives and stretching tight budgets. Few creators have had a closer view of how — and why — the industry has moved away from its traditional home base.
Still, many in Hollywood remain hesitant to speak publicly. Some producers declined to comment on the record, and a recent letter to the president from Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone — two of his closest Hollywood allies — urging tax relief for the film and TV industry made no mention of the issue.
We spoke with Kripke about why tariffs aren't the answer, what it would actually take to bring production back to Southern California, and how economic policy could shape the future of storytelling.
Eric Kripke: The proposed 100 percent tariff on shooting internationally is a real and serious problem.
In my entire career, I've only shot in Los Angeles twice — it's a lot of jobs lost in what is the center of the industry. However, tariffs are not the way to solve that problem. It's confusing, a little scattershot, and I think almost impossible to implement because movies like Mission: Impossible or James Bond have to be shot around the world. Even though you're shooting some of it in the United States, you're also circling the globe.
What happens if your visual effects company is international? Do you have to pay double for that even if you're making an American picture?
[Filmmaking] isn't the same as importing products, where at the port, you say, 'Well, if it's coming from this place, we add this tax.' I don't know how you would define what gets taxed and how those taxes would be implemented. It also infringes on free speech to a certain extent. I just don't understand the legality of it.
We shoot The Boys in Toronto for two reasons: The relative strength of the American dollar and the tax incentives and rebates that they give. So in effect, we're getting an additional like 19 cents on the dollar, 20 cents on the dollar of every single dollar spent, which is millions and millions of dollars more than we would have had were we to shoot in Los Angeles. In terms of being able to stretch the dollar, that equates to a whole other action scene or a big actor that I wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. These kinds of things really affect the quality of the show.
But filming in Canada used to be a mess. It wasn't until they brought X-Files up there that it really modernized the industry in that city. The tragic thing is Los Angeles already has all the infrastructure that has taken these other towns decades to build, and now it has kind of just been sitting on its butt with amazing crew and sound stages just watching these other towns evolve into amazing production centers.
But one thing that's not attractive about Canada is the weather — it's horrible.
It would 100 percent [make us more competitive.] Southern California has to be competitive in its tax incentives. They're so far behind not just Canada but also Atlanta and other production hubs like New York.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is actually finally paying attention to it. A bill is starting to circulate about drastically increasing the tax rebate. That's how to get production home — you get them home with a carrot, not a stick.
It's not just California: Other states need to really examine their tax incentives and find ways to make it attractive to film there. What they're losing in tax revenue, they're gaining in salaries and thousands of jobs. They're also stabilizing the middle class who work on these productions, including carpenters, craftsmen, cameramen, and caterers.
Studios are primarily driven by how they can save money, which I understand. They're a business, and their job is to try to save money. As much as it irritates me personally on a day-to-day basis, I get it. So if they can save as much money as they would save if they were to shoot in Toronto or Vancouver, for sure, they would choose Los Angeles. It would be simpler logistically: It'd be easier for them to get to set and save them money on plane tickets. If they want to yell at a director, it's just a drive.
There's quite a lot of production happening in the United States — it's just not happening in Southern California. You can't book a sound stage in Atlanta because it's so busy. It's the same case with New York State and New Mexico.
The worse the economy gets, the harder it is to import things and mount productions. Productions are very much like giant construction projects — you're just building things with equipment from all over.
This 100 percent tariff on movies produced outside the U.S. could have a really chilling effect on independent film. Worst-case scenario: Studios will become even more focused on Marvel or comic books, which is not great for variety. But they [make so much money], they'll survive whatever happens.
What might not survive is the man or the woman with a really fresh vision and only half a million dollars or a million dollars to make their movie. Those people would normally have to make it in Canada, London, or Ireland just to get it on its feet. It couldn't be worse timing for the tariffs because a lot of the [people being taxed] are very small filmmakers making very low-budget stuff. And if everyone's scared to buy a movie that was shot overseas, there will be people whose dreams will get dashed over this. We live in a scary time, and there are bigger problems to tackle [than the film industry]. But [taxing it] is not helping it.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The post 'The Boys' Creator Eric Kripke Warns That Trump's Tariff Plan Could Hurt, Not Help, Hollywood appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Hashtags

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


Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
11 essential Brian Wilson songs, from surf rock to ‘Pet Sounds'
If you enjoy most any kind of pop music, you're a cork in Brian Wilson's ocean. The principal songwriter and sonic architect of the Beach Boys, he bottled the vibes of Southern California — and really, the American optimism of the early 1960s — in dozens of hits (many of which contain the word 'surf') before creating what is by broad consensus one of the great rock records of his or any era, 'Pet Sounds.' No one needs an introduction to this catalogue; it remains encoded in music's DNA. But we have some favorites. Don't you?

29 minutes ago
Members of the Fulbright scholarship board resign, accusing Trump of meddling
All 12 members of the board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright scholarships on Wednesday resigned in protest of what they call the Trump administration's meddling with the selection of award recipients, according to a statement. A statement published online by the board members said the administration usurped the board's authority by denying awards to 'a substantial number of people' who already had been chosen. Another 1,200 award recipients who were already approved to come to the U.S. are undergoing an unauthorized review process that could lead to their rejection, the board members said. 'To continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the Board's request that they follow the law would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad,' the statement reads. Congress established the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago to promote international exchange and American diplomacy. The highly selective program awards about 9,000 scholarships annually in the U.S. and in more than 160 other countries to students, scholars, and professionals in a range of fields. A message seeking comment was left with the State Department, which runs the scholarship program. The resignations were first reported by The New York Times. The intervention from the Trump administration undermined the program's merit-based selection process and its insulation from political influence, the board members wrote. 'We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute,' the statement said. 'It is our sincere hope that Congress, the courts, and future Fulbright Boards will prevent the administration's efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation's most respected and valuable programs.' Award recipients are selected in a yearlong process by nonpartisan staff at the State Department. The recipients who had their awards canceled are in fields including biology, engineering, medical sciences, and history, the board members said. The announcement comes as the Trump administration ratchets up scrutiny of international students on several fronts. The administration has expanded the grounds for revoking foreign students' legal status, and recently paused scheduling of new interviews for student visas as it increases vetting of their social media activity. The government also has moved to block foreign students from attending Harvard as it pressures the Ivy League school to adopt a series of reforms. ___ standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in lawsuit involving former American-Statesman site
A judge this week ruled in favor of the city of Austin in a case involving the former American-Statesman site just south of downtown along Lady Bird Lake. The ruling denied a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental watchdog group. The lawsuit alleged that the Austin City Council violated key provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act in 2022 when it approved a special type of zoning known as a planned unit development, or PUD, for the former Statesman site. The lawsuit sought to void the council's Dec. 2, 2022 vote to approve the PUD, based on the alleged open meetings violations. The Statesman moved several years ago from the site at 305 S. Congress Ave. to a new location near the airport. In arguing their case before District Judge Jan Soifer on May 15, Save Our Springs attorneys Bobby Levinski and Bill Bunch contended that the council granted the PUD zoning in violation of two key mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act: proper public notice, and a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak before the vote was taken. Levinski said today that the Save Our Springs Alliance might appeal the ruling. "Given the importance of this case for governmental transparency and proper enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act, we'll be evaluating our options for appeal," Levinski said. "This case ultimately impacts the ability of residents to weigh in on important matters that affect their community, including the relocation of the Hike and Bike Trail and removal of the natural, tree-lined aesthetic of the Lady Bird Lake shoreline. Every case has its challenges, and we may need to work on it a little longer to ultimately prevail." More: Lawsuit seeks to halt planned redevelopment of former Statesman site on Lady Bird Lake Casey Dobson and Sara Wilder Clark represented the landowner, the Cox family of Atlanta, along with Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group. The Cox family hired Endeavor several years ago to create plans to redevelop the prime waterfront site. The site formerly housed the newspaper offices and printing plant. Cox sold the Statesman but retained ownership of the 18.9-acre site, a property many developers had long coveted and said was ripe for new development. Dobson did not immediately respond to an email for comment about the ruling and what it means for future plans to transform the property into a mixed-use project with high-rise buildings and other uses, which could include housing, office and retail development. Richard Suttle Jr., an Austin attorney and the spokesperson for the planned redevelopment, said he hasn't seen a final judgment yet in the case, so couldn't comment on what it might mean for the future planned redevelopment. Dan Richards represented the city in the lawsuit. Richards said Soifer's ruling, signed Monday, means "the trial court case is basically over." At last month's hearing, Richards told Soifer that voiding the PUD could jeopardize the developer's ability, in the current economic climate, to secure a new amendment offering the same level of community benefits — such as 6.5 acres of green space — at the site. At the same hearing, Dobson and Wilder Clark said the PUD zoning change was properly noticed, and the public was given sufficient opportunity to speak at nine different meetings. However, Levinski said that, while the PUD was listed on the council agenda as a zoning item, that posting was misleading because it failed to provide "full disclosure of the subjects to be discussed." The proposed PUD ordinance encompassed "numerous provisions that extend well beyond traditional zoning regulations," Levinski told Soifer. Those included "sweeping changes" to environmental protections and other city land-use codes, including a failure to disclose height limits, setbacks and the elimination of two restrictive covenants. "There are so many different parts of this (PUD) ordinance that are not zoning, yet it was sold to public as a rezoning," Levinski said. The zoning changes included modifications to the Lady Bird Lake shoreline; the relocation of the Ann and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail inland away from the lake; the removal of more than 90 mature trees; code waivers; and "amendments to almost every chapter of Austin's land development code," Levinski told Soifer. In arguing their case before Soifer, Leviniski and Bunch said that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires a public notice identifying these major changes to city standards and a public 'right to speak' on them before council granted the approvals. The Cox owners and Endeavor have the right to build high-rises — up to 725 feet tall — within 140 feet of Lady Bird Lake. The development would be "forever exempt from a plethora of water quality, parkland and lakeshore rules and regulations," according to the Save Our Springs Alliance. "The key here is the Statesman PUD went beyond zoning," Levinski said. "This didn't give sufficient notice to the public to say what is occurring with this zoning." Among other issues, he said the PUD included "non-zoning provisions, including items the council doesn't have authority over." There was a way the city could have described with greater detail what was occurring with the zoning case, "but they chose not to, and it's deceptive that they chose not to," Levinski said. The level of specificity "gets enhanced" when the issue involves matters of "significant public interest," Levinski said. "It's not enough to rely on the assumption that the general public may have knowledge of the subject matter." Dobson and Wilder Clark, however, told Soifer that the public notices complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The notices properly and adequately disclosed the subject of the PUD at various meetings on the council's printed public agenda, Dobson and Wilder Clark said. Moreover, all the details that Save Our Springs claims were lacking from the notice were available at "the click of a link" in backup materials on the council's online agenda, Wilder Clark said. "Not only did (the public) get to talk in meetings, but they got to submit written testimony," Wilder Clark said. She also noted that the council postponed meetings on the case. Showing slides of newspaper articles, Dobson said the proposed redevelopment of the Statesman site was front-page news. He said the case was "noticed out of the wazoo." "(Opponents) think this was done in the dark of night, with adequate notice to nobody," Dobson said. "In fact, the polar opposite happened." Dobson said no special notice was required, and opponents "didn't need it. They wrote letters, they spoke at length to (the city) Planning Commission and City Council. This did not take place under the shroud of secrecy," Dobson said. Countering the city's arguments, Bunch said the city "invented out of whole cloth" its position that it upheld the open meetings act, saying "there's no support for that in the entire body of open meetings cases." Early in the hearing, Dobson showed a photo of the current Statesman site "in all its glory," showing a low-slung building surrounded by a near vacant parking lot with lots of asphalt and concrete. Attorneys for the city and the developer stated that "virtually no one" opposes the proposed development, which may include condominiums, apartments, a hotel, office space and retail areas. Noting the site's popularity as a prime location for viewing the famed bat colony under the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, they emphasized the new development will enhance the bat viewing area. Additionally, they said the project has the support of bat conservation groups. Last year, the Save Our Springs Alliance won a lawsuit contesting the city's creation of a special financing district, a so-called tax increment reinvestment zone, to fund infrastructure improvements within the proposed Statesman redevelopment project. A judge ruled that financing method unlawful. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Judge rules for city in case involving former Statesman site