New tariff hits films made outside the United States

Photo of Brands&People in Unsplash

President Donald Trump announced that he will impose a 100% tariff on all films made outside the United States imported into the country. The measure was announced through his platform. Truth Social, where he criticized the tax incentives that other countries offer to attract international film productions.

Trump accused the U.S. film production business of being "stolen" by other countries through unfair competition practices, asserting that it is necessary to protect the domestic industry from international competition.

What would this policy entail?

• The measure, if implemented, would mean that any foreign film—regardless of its country of origin—would be subject to a tariff equal to its import value.
• The announcement did not detail how the tariff would be applied, what legally valid definitions would be used to classify a film as "foreign," or when it would take effect.
• Experts have warned that the measure could conflict with international trade regulations and cultural treaties. Furthermore, legal problems could arise from treating films—a form of intellectual property and service—as taxable physical goods.
• Many film projects today are co-produced between countries or use diverse locations. Defining "origin" for tariff purposes could be complex and lead to legal and accounting disputes.

Affecting examples and immediate reactions

• Studios like Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount/Skydance, and platforms like Netflix could be affected if they import productions made entirely outside the U.S.
• Many big-budget films shoot portions in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, or other countries to take advantage of local tax credits. These are precisely the locations Trump intends to indirectly tax.
• Following the announcement, shares in film industry companies fell.
• Governments of film-exporting countries could respond with retaliatory measures, reducing imports of American films, or legal initiatives within international organizations.

Legal doubts and implementation challenges

The administration has yet to present a clear legal basis for imposing such a tariff on foreign films. Trump had already floated the idea in May 2025, but the White House said no final decision had been made.

Analysts point out that films are often considered services or cultural goods, not imported physical goods, which complicates their tariff regulation.

Another challenge is that many productions combine elements from several countries (filming, post-production, visual effects). Calculating what percentage is "foreign" can be a contentious area.

Possible medium-term effects

• If tariffication is effective, it could reduce the number of foreign film imports, boosting local productions.
• It could define a new axis for political debate: culture as a commercial battlefield.
• The global entertainment industry—and multinational distribution agreements—would be forced to renegotiate business structures.
• Actors, directors, and studios could move more production to the U.S. to avoid tariff barriers.
• Film exporting countries could react diplomatically or commercially, generating an escalation of tariffs.

Examples of films that would pay tariffs

• Parasite (South Korea)
• Love Dogs (Mexico)
• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (United Kingdom)
• Slumdog Millionaire (India/United Kingdom)
• The Lord of the Rings (New Zealand)
  

Examples of films that would not pay tariffs

• Top Gun: Maverick (filmed in California and Washington, USA)
• Avengers: Endgame (shot in Atlanta, Georgia)
• Oppenheimer (filmed in California and New Mexico, USA)
• Barbie (although it had international sets, the main production was in California, so it would probably be considered local)
  

For more stories like this, follow More Latin.

Sources:

• ABC News