Trump's tariffs could push up BBC licence fee, Tories warn
The UK government said it was in 'active discussions' with the White House after the US president suggested he may apply tariffs to foreign-made films to revive America's movie industry.
The move could cripple the revenue of BBC Studios, the corporation's commercial arm, which last year made £454m by selling productions to the American market, according to its annual report. Some of its most notable exports include Doctor Who and David Attenborough's Frozen Planet films.
It is unclear whether Trump's tariffs will be applied solely to films or also television series.
Either way, shadow culture secretary, Stuart Andrew, warned the loss of income could leave British licence fee payers footing the bill.
In an urgent question to the Government on Wednesday, he asked: 'What assessment have they made on the potential drastic cut in the BBC Studios profits, that sells into the US market, could have on the licence fee?'
Sir Chris Byrant, the culture minister, said in response that Labour was 'already in active discussions with the top of the US administration on this subject'.
More than £1.8bn was made by BBC Studios last year by selling its popular British film and television productions to audiences around the world, down from £2.1bn in 2023.
The money is a lifeline for the corporation as more viewers cancel their licence fees and turn to streaming services like Netflix instead.
When asked by The Telegraph how it planned to deal with the impact of the tariffs should they come into effect, the BBC declined to comment.
Mr Andrew said it was proof Labour should have begun trade negotiations with President Trump sooner.
He told The Telegraph: 'They wasted five months when they could have been negotiating. They need to highlight [to President Trump] that tariffs will hurt US businesses as they have invested in UK facilities.'
The Government is racing to seal a trade deal with President Trump to reduce the impact of his tariff regime – under which UK exporters will pay a blanket 10pc tariff. Last month, Trump initiated a 90-day pause before the regime was implemented.
On Tuesday, it was reported Angelina Jolie's father, Jon Voight, had advised the White House to include films produced outside of the US in its tariff war in a bid to save Hollywood.
However, the President appeared to soften his stance late on Tuesday, telling CNBC: 'I'm not looking to hurt the industry, I want to help the industry.'
Experts said it may spark a total overhaul of the £174.50 annual licence fee scheme.
Patrick Barwise, emeritus professor of management and marketing at London Business School, said: 'This will further feed into a sense that it is going to damage BBC Studios ability to generate revenue from [the US] market.
'The contributions from BBC Studios are used to subsidise the licence free. My hunch is that we'll end up with a different model from the licence fee.'
He added it was 'another blow on top of the massive funding cuts since 2010. This is going to hit its exports but also it will hit other UK studios. It hits the whole distribution system and it will increase costs'.
The BBC's charter, which authorises it to administer the licence fee to generate profit, is due to end in 2027, with discussions between the corporation and the Government starting this year and its renewal thereafter.
Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, previously criticised the model as 'unenforceable'.
A government spokesman said: 'Talks on an economic deal between the US and the UK are ongoing – but we are not going to provide a running commentary on the details of live discussions or set any timelines because it is not in the national interest.
'We will continue to take a calm and steady approach to talks and aim to find a resolution to help ease the pressure on UK businesses and consumers.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Florida sues textbook giants for alleged $60M fraud: '5900 instances of Overcharges,' governor says
The state has filed a lawsuit seeking to claw back millions of dollars from two of the nation's largest textbook publishing companies.
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump isn't trying to ‘erase history' at Smithsonian — he's reversing a destructive woke takeover
Liberals were up in arms this week after President Trump said he wanted a review of the Smithsonian Institute — saying their displays were too negative, and too focused on slavery. But Trump isn't trying to 'erase history,' he's looking to reverse a woke movement that has indeed rewritten the American story to highlight suffering rather than providing a balanced picture of our past. Trump's criticism that the Smithsonian is overly focused on slavery is not unreasonable: In nearly every exhibit, critical race theory in general, or slavery specifically, makes an appearance. For instance, its new Benjamin Franklin exhibit on his innovations includes a whole section on slavery — with assumptions, but no proof, that slaves assisted Franklin in his electrical innovations. Even if they hadn't, the curators argue that without their work around the house, Franklin couldn't have spent the time on his experiments! 'Franklin held people enslaved during the time he pursued his electrical experiments. Their labor in his household helped make time that he could use to study electricity. Family, friends, and visitors directly participated in electrical experiments. The records are few and unclear, but enslaved people may also have directly assisted his research.' Another example of the obsession with slavery comes from the National Portrait Gallery; nearly every early Founding Father's description includes a statement on slavery. For example, the description for Thomas Jefferson includes the statement: 'Although Jefferson once called slavery 'an abominable crime,' he consistently enslaved African Americans, including his late wife Martha's half-sister, Sally Hemings, with whom he had several children.' The overemphasis on the history of slavery is a fairly recent development, an offshoot of the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2019, Lonnie G. Bunch III took over as the Secretary of the Smithsonian. Prior to that, Bunch was the founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is nearly exclusively focused on the legacy of slavery, with exhibits such as In Slavery's Wake, Slavery and Freedom, and Make Good the Promise, which deal with the history of slavery. Also in 2019, the Smithsonian collaborated with the New York Times on its 1619 Project, which falsely claims that the United States started, not with the Declaration of Independence or Revolutionary War, but when the first slave ship arrived. As curator Mary Elliot remarked at the time: 'This is a shared history, everyone inherited the legacies of slavery.' But America's history is more than just about slavery, and not everyone inherited this legacy — after all, America is also a nation of immigrants who came after the Civil War. In the Smithsonian 2020 annual report, more obsession with slavery comes into view. The Smithsonian is on a mission to have a completely searchable digital museum called 'The Searchable Museum Initiative.' One may think it would begin with digitization of some our greatest moments in history, such as the landing on the moon, the passing of the US Constitution, or even its great Natural History collections. You would be wrong; the digitization began 'with the museum's Slavery and Freedom exhibition.' The annual report claims that 'The Searchable Museum will provide rich, interactive, digital experiences that match the immersive experience of a visit to the physical museum' — unfortunately, likely as biased as a visit to the museum themselves. The problem with modern museums is not just about the obsession with slavery; it's also about dishonestly painting all of American history as evil and full of horrors — with little or no redeeming qualities. For instance, in the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum in NYC, George Washington hardly gets a mention, but his silhouette is used in a description of him as a 'town destroyer' — supposedly a nickname that Native Americans still use to describe our first President. And yet there's no mention in either of the American Indian Museums — in NYC or DC — about slavery practiced by Native Americans, both before Europeans' arrival and afterward. For example, the Cherokee owned slaves. In 1835, 15,000 Cherokee owned 1,592 African slaves; by the Civil War onset, 17,000 Cherokee owned 4,000 African slaves. While museums should provide an honest account of history, they should not be afraid to showcase and celebrate American achievement, which includes ending slavery. At present, however, museums seem more interested in pushing a woke, revisionist history of the United States. With two new Smithsonian museums in development, the National Museum of the American Latino and the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, we can expect more of the same — unless we take action against woke propaganda now. Elizabeth Weiss is a professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University and author of 'On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors.'
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's DC takeover is just Step 1 — dysfunctional capital needs a bigger fix
Last week President Donald Trump declared war on crime in Washington, DC, when he sent in the National Guard and federalized the district's police force for the 30-day period allowable under the DC Home Rule Act. Trump's motives were good: He's right that it's shameful our national capital has become one of our most dangerous cities. He's also right that DC's crime epidemic hurts America's competitiveness and prestige. But the president's month-long law enforcement takeover won't fix that problem — because the problem is not, at its core, bad law enforcement. It's the fact that DC's government has for decades now shown itself incapable of even the most basic level of public administration. Blame it, too, on Congress, which transferred control over the district to the city's own elected government in the Home Rule Act of 1973 — but has refused to admit its mistake and reverse course. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives remain aloof from the problems they created, even as federal staffers, visitors and on occasion their own members are routinely harassed and attacked by criminals on the streets and in their homes. But the US Constitution stipulates that DC is a national public resource, not a self-governing city like any other. Under the Constitution, it is Congress's responsibility to competently administrate it — and Congress has abdicated that responsibility. When the 30-day takeover period is up (assuming Congress does not renew his privileges), Trump will turn the keys back over to a capital city government that can't staff a police force, can't keep young violent offenders off the streets and can't run a functioning crime lab. District officials can't claim to have reduced crime without cooking the books, and can't protect visiting diplomats from being shot And they're not just failing at law enforcement: DC can't keep its public schools out of the basement of national performance rankings, and can't prevent huge homeless encampments from forming while thousands of district-owned public housing units go unoccupied. The only possible solution to such a crisis of mismanagement is to overturn the law that gave home rule to DC and start over from scratch. And if President Trump is serious about tackling the district's dysfunction, he should do just that. First, the president should build up some goodwill by ending his police federalization and troop occupation, preferably earlier than planned. No need to make excuses; he can simply explain that he's come to realize DC's dysfunction runs far deeper than anything a few extra officers on the streets can solve. Then he and Republican leadership should begin meeting with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to generate support for Home Rule repeal. While Trump seems to think the entire district is dead set against him, this is incorrect: Many residents, while no fans of the president, are fed up with not being able to safely walk their dogs at night. Longtime Democratic members of Congress have personally experienced the city's dangers for many years, and they all know the ordeal of their colleague Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who was assaulted in her apartment building's elevator just two years ago. If Trump were to approach this issue firmly but collaboratively, he would find the water warmer than he thinks. Legally, the argument is not a hard sell. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have 'exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the federal district. Congress has given a 50-year trial to the notion of delegating its power to the people of DC, and that trial has unequivocally failed to produce a district that serves the interests of the federal government, the American people, or the residents themselves. Therefore, we should return to rule by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Doing so would require a simple act of Congress, passed by both parties, that overturns the 1973 law and dismisses DC's elected representatives. A third section of the new law should establish a congressional committee to appoint exemplary city managers from cities around United States to reconstitute a competent DC government. In many American cities, like Madison, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., and Wichita, Kan., elected officials appoint professional administrators to oversee day-to-day municipal operations. Washington, DC, should do the same — with Congress taking ultimate responsibility. Some on the left will bemoan the reversal of Home Rule as yet another federal assault on our democracy. But the District of Columbia was never intended by the Founders to be a self-governing state. It was intended to serve the interests of the country as a whole, by providing a safe and orderly place for public administration. Returning DC's governing prerogative to the people of America, not the district itself, will take us one step closer to being the republic the Founders envisioned. John Masko is a journalist specializing in business and international politics.
