US President Donald Trump let the world know last weekend that movies have become another one of his tariff targets.
“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” he wrote on social media. “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. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! ... WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!”
To get the “credit where due” piece of this out of the way: As with the administration’s overall tariff policy, there is in fact a genuine economic issue to consider here. Big-budget studio blockbusters are taking advantage of tax breaks, cheaper labor and other incentives to shoot in London, New Zealand and Canada (among others). Mid and low-budget genre films are frequently shot in eastern European countries such as Romania and Bulgaria for the same reasons. Animation and post-production work (such as editing and special effects) are also typically farmed out overseas.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
However, a broad and sweeping “solution” like this amounts to using a chainsaw for a job that requires a scalpel — a familiar theme within this administration.
How would one even impose a tariff on “movies”? This is an art form. It is not like a car or a television, where you purchase the individual parts and assemble them into a product that comes over in a shipping container. Movies are comprised of ideas brought to life by the labor and talent of skilled professionals, and more often than not these days, they are digitally transmitted — not contained in a physical form.
Does Trump want to tariff ticket prices? Does he propose making Blu-rays for foreign films twice as expensive? What about streaming services, which typically fill out their catalogs with international programming?
More importantly, as economics professor Justin Wolfers noted on Bluesky, the US exports far more films and television shows than it imports. Most Hollywood blockbusters at least match, if not exceed, their domestic grosses with foreign ticket sales. So, if typically lucrative markets like China, the UK, Japan and Australia choose to impose retaliatory tariffs on American movies, well, that would be the very definition of, to borrow Trump’s words, a “very fast death” for the “movie industry in America.”
China, for its part, threatened to do just that nearly a month ago when Trump was not even talking about movies yet.
However, we are not just talking about a financial loss. Art, in whatever medium, can offer different perspectives and unite communities. Movies are particularly adept at exploring complex themes in a relatively tight time frame; they are, and always have been, a universal language for the exchange of our individual stories, histories and ideas.
The US has benefited greatly from this trade— so much so that Hollywood is considered one of the country’s soft powers. And it is not a one-way street. Foreign films allow more members of our melting pot to see themselves onscreen; they also inspire domestic filmmakers, and contribute to the growth of the art. There are other, less high-minded benefits to boot. The South Korean hit Parasite, for example, grossed US$50 million-plus in the US, with moviegoers not only spending money on tickets, but popcorn, candy and drinks, boosting theaters’ bottom lines.
The logistics of a tariff on movies, it seems, have not been well thought out.
As if on schedule, the White House has already issued a statement all but walking back the president’s jeremiad.
However, the message cannot be walked back. As with the administration’s aggressive rollbacks of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, and targeted whitewashing of American history, the announcement of this movie tariff is indicative of the MAGA movement’s ongoing effort to reshape American life and culture. What is left behind is a cultural vacuum, which prompts a simple question: What will fill it? Trump, of course, has ideas.
I am reminded of 2019 when he devoted time at one of his re-election rallies to address the then-recent Oscar sweep Parasite.
“The winner is ... a movie from South Korea! What the hell was that all about?” he said. “We got enough problems with South Korea with trade. On top of that, they give them best movie of the year? Was it good? I don’t know. Let’s get Gone With the Wind. Can we get Gone With the Wind back, please?”
The most chilling words in his social post last weekend, at least for students of history, are the ones that, at first, read as a sidebar: his contention that, in addition to the economic impact of overseas production, “other Nations” are using movies to carry their own nefarious “messaging and propaganda.”
This was the same accusation lobbed at left-leaning screenwriters and directors during the dark days of the Hollywood blacklist and the investigations of the US House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities. During that time, creativity was stifled and industry professionals were locked out of jobs and opportunities.
There is little reason to believe that the Trump administration — in the name of its all-purpose interest in “national security” — will not follow the same path.
Some might think that is hyperbole or paranoia.
Perhaps.
However, if we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that we underestimate Trump and those he has placed in power, and the extremity of their views and their goals, at our own peril.
Jason Bailey is a film critic, author and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS