What “Make Hollywood Great Again” really means for entertainment

On Sunday, May 4th, President Trump announced his intent to put a “100 per cent Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands”. 

The administration has stated it is “exploring all options” and that no final decisions have been made. This is a playbook we have already seen, with the TikTok ban in perpetual play resulting in the deterioration of the app’s relevance, and the threat of global tariffs having rocked stock markets and US bond valuations. So, even if a 100% tariff is not the outcome, it is important to take stock of the effects that can – and will – result. 

How do you tariff a movie?  

If importing crates of DVDs, the answer would be straightforward. Streaming is more nebulous, and largely without precedent. The EU has a Digital Sales Tax for foreign tech companies who ‘import’ their digital ‘products’, e.g., platforms – but not the content on them. That would be like putting a tariff on Netflix itself, rather than any single film on it. 

We are not just talking about arty independent Italian films being screened in US cinemas. The reality is productions with US stars and financial backers, filmed on-set in countries like Croatia, New Zealand, or Thailand, with animation sourced to studios in France and Poland. The soundtrack might feature artists from Brazil, and costuming made in Indonesia. The film then gets licensed to a streaming service, which is headquartered in California. When exactly does the import become tariffed?

The issue is not, as per Trump’s post, that the film industry is being outsourced to other countries as part of a “concerted effort” to spread foreign “propaganda”. The reality is that studios often find it preferable to film in foreign countries than to set up a green screen in LA for many reasons. If a big issue is that domestic production is so expensive that US companies are going international to make it worthwhile, simply taxing that process is not going to fix it; other measures must be taken. Yet the Trump administration seems to be overlooking this nuance. 

So, what happens next? 

Uncertainty over time becomes its own certainty 

When faced with constantly changing goalposts and threats against unpredictable missteps, the natural inclination is to ‘mitigate risk’. For entertainment based outside of the US, this means steering clear of the market entirely. The US may have the highest ARPU consumer base in the world, but South America and APAC offer scale and developing markets, and Europe offers an inviting combination of high ARPU and market stability. 

Touring the US is already logistically and financially draining for foreign artists; now it comes with moral qualms as well. We will see more artists cutting their tours, and more movies that talk about the US, rather than to it. Bad Bunny has already announced a world tour that will not include the United States; others will likely follow. 

However, there are those who cannot avoid the proverbial line of fire: those who live and work within the US itself. Costs are already high, and with tariffs, will continue to rise. Consumers will have less spending power. Outsourcing to cheaper markets will become prohibitive. Artists of all kinds will face growing challenges. It will be increasingly difficult to make a living, especially as AI is used to replace them where possible to cut costs. More subtly, and perhaps more concerning, artists with platforms will feel less free to tell the honest stories of what is going on around them without fear of consequences. Being critical has never been mainstream; we could be going down a road where it becomes dangerous. Art will inevitably become more escapist and less incisive, which makes the rise of gen AI very timely.