President Donald Trump has announced plans to impose a 100% tariff on movies produced outside the United States, marking an unusual expansion of his trade war into the entertainment industry. The directive, posted on his Truth Social platform, aims to protect Hollywood despite America's already dominant position in global film markets.

Trump claimed that movie production has been "stolen" from Hollywood and the U.S., stating: "I will be imposing a 100% tariff on any and all movies that are made outside of the United States." However, the implementation details remain unclear since movies and TV shows are primarily transmitted digitally rather than through traditional ports where tariffs are typically applied. The announcement also raises questions about how the policy would affect U.S. movies filmed in foreign locations, such as James Bond and Jason Bourne films, and what legal authority the president would use to impose such tariffs.

The threat, first issued in May, has yet to specify an effective date. Movies represent an unusual battleground for U.S. trade policy, particularly given America's overwhelming dominance in the global film industry. "Unlike any other country's film industry, U.S. movies are the most accessible, well-known, and best performing due to the numerous language options and worldwide reach provided by U.S.-based studios," wrote trade analyst Jacob Jensen of the center-right American Action Forum in a July commentary.

Data from the Motion Picture Association demonstrates this dominance, showing that American films generated $22.6 billion in exports and a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023. A recent report noted that these films created a positive balance of trade for the U.S. in every major market worldwide. In domestic movie theaters, American-produced films overwhelmingly control the marketplace.

Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law Center, warned that other countries might retaliate with their own levies on American movies or services. "In movies, Brand America is way, way ahead," he said. "What this policy does is actually cook the golden goose that's laying the golden eggs." Tariffs have become Trump's preferred solution for America's economic challenges, serving as a tool to extract concessions from other countries and reversing decades of U.S. support for lower trade barriers.

Trump has justified the proposed tariffs by citing national security concerns, a rationale he has previously used for import taxes on various countries and sector-specific goods. In May, he claimed that the American movie industry is "DYING to a very fast death" as other countries offer incentives to attract filmmaking away from the U.S. Recent years have indeed brought challenges to U.S. film and television production, including setbacks from the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2023 Hollywood guild strikes, and recent wildfires in the Los Angeles area.

Incentive programs have long influenced filming locations both internationally and within the U.S., with more production moving from California to states like Georgia and New Mexico, as well as countries like Canada. However, international markets represent a substantial portion of Hollywood's revenue, accounting for over 70% of total box office earnings last year, according to Heeyon Kim, an assistant professor of strategy at Cornell University. She warned that tariffs and potential international retaliation could result in billions of dollars in lost earnings and thousands of lost jobs.

"To me, this makes just no sense," Kim told The Associated Press, adding that such tariffs could undermine an otherwise thriving sector of the U.S. economy. The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, representing behind-the-scenes entertainment workers across the U.S. and Canada, acknowledged in May that Trump had "correctly recognized the urgent threat from international competition that the American film and television industry faces today." However, the union recommended implementing a federal production tax incentive and other provisions to level the playing field without harming the industry overall.

The practical implementation of movie tariffs presents unprecedented challenges. Traditional tariffs apply to physical imports crossing borders, but film production primarily involves digital services including shooting, editing, and post-production work that occurs electronically, explained Ann Koppuzha, a lawyer and business law lecturer at Santa Clara University's Leavey School of Business. She noted that film production resembles "an applied service that can be taxed, not tariffed," but taxes require Congressional approval, which could prove challenging even with a Republican majority.

Modern movie production is incredibly complex and international in scope. It's common for both large and small films to include production in the U.S. and other countries, or to be shot overseas entirely. Steven Schiffman, a longtime industry veteran and adjunct professor at Georgetown University, pointed to popular titles filmed outside the U.S., such as Warner Bros.' Harry Potter series, which was almost entirely shot in the United Kingdom. U.S. studios frequently shoot abroad because tax incentives can significantly reduce production costs, but blanket tariffs could discourage this practice or limit options, potentially harming both Hollywood films and the global industry that helps create them.

"When you make these sort of blanket rules, you're missing some of the nuance of how production works," Schiffman said previously. "Sometimes you just need to go to the location, because frankly it's way too expensive just to try to create in a soundstage." Experts warn that the prospect of tariffing foreign-made movies ventures into completely uncharted territory, with Koppuzha stating in May: "There's simply no precedent."

While the Trump administration could potentially extend similar threats to other forms of intellectual property like music, they would encounter the same practical implementation hurdles. Industry experts also warn of potential international retaliation that could significantly harm U.S. interests. Kim pointed to quotas that some countries have used to boost their domestic films by ensuring they receive a portion of theater screens. Many countries have reduced or suspended such quotas over the years in the name of open trade, but if the U.S. places sweeping tariffs on all foreign-made films, these protective quotas could return, which would hurt Hollywood films and other U.S.-made intellectual property.

Although U.S. dominance in film means fewer direct substitutes exist for retaliation, Schiffman noted that other entertainment forms like game development could experience related impacts down the road. The proposed tariffs represent a significant departure from traditional trade policy, targeting an industry where America already enjoys unprecedented global success and potentially risking retaliation that could undermine that very dominance.