What to Know About the Proposed 100% Film Tariff

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump announced his intention to impose a 100% tariff on all films produced outside the United States and imported into the country. The statement, posted to Truth Social, calls for the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to “immediately begin the process” of implementing the tariffs.

“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” Trump wrote. “Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States... This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat.”

While no formal policy has been introduced at this time, the announcement has prompted significant discussion and speculation across the entertainment industry.

What’s being proposed?

Trump’s statement targets “any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.” 

There is no detailed framework available yet, but key questions are already surfacing:

• Would the tariff apply only to non-U.S. films, or to films made by U.S. companies that were shot overseas?
• Will co-productions or international post-production services be affected?
• Will the tariff be based on production budgets, revenue earned in the U.S., or other criteria?
• Is there legal authority under existing trade laws—such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—to implement such a tariff?
  

According to a Deadline report, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office has stated that tariffs are not a remedy listed under IEEPA, raising questions about how such a policy could be enacted or enforced.

A global industry on shaky ground

In the modern film economy, international production is commonplace. Studios often shoot outside the U.S. to take advantage of tax incentives and cost efficiencies. Recent examples include Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning, filmed in multiple international locations, and Minecraft, a major 2025 release shot in New Zealand and Canada.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, about 45% of Minecraft’s box office revenue came from the U.S., suggesting a tariff could affect not just future projects but films that have already wrapped production or are in post.

Will French, who leads Fallbrook’s film and television finance division and has worked on hundreds of productions globally, outlined in a Wrapbook blog how international incentives shape production decisions. In it, he noted, “Productions large and small, as well as the major studios, are looking to international programs from Malta to Hungary to Saudi Arabia. The trend of runaway production through 2025 will likely continue.”

And in light of President Trump’s tariff announcement, French states: 

“Incentives and tariffs are ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ respectively. Both produce economic results. However, in the current environment, a tariff could be damaging if applied retroactively to recently-produced materials, as film budgets are carefully constructed in relation to consumer demand. To add a new cost to productions after-the-fact could deal a harsh blow to distributors, production companies and studios—as well as everyone up and down the chain.

In contrast, incentives for filmmaking work quickly and effectively to redirect production activity from one jurisdiction to another. They do not cause economic harm, but instead provide helpful de-risking of productions.”

To hear more about French’s position on the possibility of film industry tariffs, check out our latest On Production podcast episode.

With Wrapbook Co-founder Cameron Woodward, French breaks down the impact that tariffs could have on the film industry and alternatives to increasing domestic film production. 

Domestic incentives vs. international competition

While many states in the U.S. offer local production incentives, there is currently no federal-level program equivalent to those found in other countries. In his post for Wrapbook, French suggested that the U.S. may need to consider a national incentive program to remain competitive. “A workable federal program would likely compare to the tax credits offered for renewable energy investment. Even a small federal tax credit for film and television would turn the tide.”

Recently, states like California and New York have expanded their programs. Governor Newsom has proposed increasing California’s film and TV tax credit program to $750 million annually. Still, cost differentials between shooting in the U.S. and abroad can be significant—up to 30%–40% in some cases—due to labor, currency, and infrastructure differences.

Potential industry impact

Stakeholders across the film ecosystem are now weighing potential impacts.

• For Studios: A tariff could affect project financing, distribution, and marketing strategies, particularly for large franchises that rely on international production pipelines.
• For Streamers: It’s unclear whether the policy would apply to series, which make up a large part of global streaming platforms’ content libraries.
• For Independent Producers: Co-productions and smaller films that rely on multiple international partners may face additional complexity or increased costs.‍
• For International Partners: Countries that host U.S.-backed productions could face reduced inbound investment if projects shift back to the U.S.—or are scaled down altogether.
  

According to BBC reporting, governments in countries such as the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand have already voiced concerns, and trade negotiations may be affected if the proposal moves forward.

What comes next?

As of now, no formal guidance or policy has been released beyond Trump’s public statement. Studios, guilds, and legal teams are watching closely, but much remains speculative.

While some see this as part of a broader trade strategy, others are taking a wait-and-see approach, especially given the complexity of classifying what constitutes a “foreign-made” film in today’s highly globalized industry.

One point of consensus: any substantial change to the economics of production—whether through tariffs or incentives—will have ripple effects across development, financing, and distribution.

Trump’s proposed tariff on foreign-made films introduces new uncertainty into an already shifting entertainment landscape. The industry is awaiting further detail, while also revisiting long-standing conversations about the role of federal policy in keeping production in the U.S.

As Will French notes, “If the U.S. wants to stem the flow of runaway production, the answer may not rest with cash-strapped states alone.” Whether through federal incentives or new trade policies, the next steps will likely reshape how—and where—films are made.

Wrapping up

We’ll continue to monitor developments and provide updates as more information becomes available.

For now, we’re in a wait-and-see phase. But what’s clear is this: the intersection of politics and production incentives is no longer a niche conversation. It’s front-page news—and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Stay tuned for more coverage as the situation develops. And if you missed it, be sure to read Will French’s full breakdown of U.S. and international tax incentive trends here.