Former President Donald Trump recently proposed a 100% tariff on movies produced abroad, a move that could significantly impact the U.S. film industry. This proposal arrives at an exciting time for the film industry. Domestic revenues are already on an impressive upward trend, with a staggering 15.8% increase on the cards for 2025. However, it raises questions about the future of productions that rely on international locations, particularly those involving iconic characters like James Bond, owned by Amazon.
James Bond, the fictional British secret agent created by Ian Fleming, is undeniably tied to British national identity. MI6, headquartered in London, serves the crown. As we’ve previously reported, Amazon controls the next Bond movie. Just the unintended consequences of Trump’s tariffs alone would send waves across the industry. The character has a rich global appeal that draws international production locations. The UK, especially, has been a popular place because of tax incentives that lure productions.
Ultimately, Trump’s plan is designed to strengthen American productions and filmmaking as a whole by pushing foreign productions out. “We want them produced right now in the United States of America!” said. This might turn out to be a huge mistake. As we’ve seen with recent blockbusters Barbie and Deadpool, filming has increasingly moved outside of the U.S. The additional likelihood that they will increase the overall production costs of making a film in the U.S. will mean that many films never get made.
As U.S. states like Georgia, Illinois, and Kentucky compete with California for film production, Governor Gavin Newsom has announced plans to double California’s film and TV tax incentives to $750 million annually. This aims to retain productions in the state amid rising competition from regions that offer generous tax breaks, including New Zealand and Australia.
The film industry has been paying close attention to Trump’s proposal. Gavin Newsom’s senior communications advisor expressed concern over the potential legal ramifications, stating, “We believe he has no authority to impose tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act since tariffs are not listed as a remedy under that law.” This sentiment mirrors larger concerns about the economic toll of any such tariffs on the industry’s rebound.
Notably, the proposed tariffs would disproportionately affect UK freelance workers. Countless Americans work on U.S. films shot there and this new rules will threaten their jobs. An anonymous source noted, “If those US films don’t get partly produced or produced in the UK, freelancers are going to be jobless.” Thousands of trained artists and craftsmen depend on these productions for their livelihoods. For many, a change in production strategy would be devastating.
Philippa Childs articulated the industry’s concerns succinctly: “These tariffs, coming after Covid and the recent slowdown, could deal a knock-out blow to an industry that is only just recovering and will be really worrying news for tens of thousands of skilled freelancers who make films in the UK.” Individuals across the film industry fear that restricting the ability to film on location in countries like the UK would damage local economies. This would be a real blow to American companies that invest the most abroad.
Beyond these issues, Trump’s claim that other countries are profiting at the expense of US filmmakers is not borne out by the evidence. He stated, “Other nations have been stealing the movies and movie-making capabilities from the United States.” His administration is determined to restore American manufacturing. We hope that more film executives join this inclusive counter-offensive tide, as they see the advantage of welcoming/retaining more productions on U.S. shores.
On the other side, industry experts, like writer Angela Watercutter, caution that these types of tariffs will end up hindering creativity and killing economic growth. Eric Deggans, NPR’s first and former TV critic, flagged another real issue. He concluded, “…The tariffs in America are doing more harm than good. The creativity-driven film industry depends on collaboration and international partnerships, and protecting it with tariffs threatens to isolate it from global markets.
In addition, other countries like Australia are readying their own defenses, looking to avoid any collateral damage from Trump’s suggestion. Tony Burke emphasized, “Nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry.” This points to a trend of increasing pushback from countries with developed film industries against U.S. policy initiatives viewed as antagonistic.
Dame Caroline Dinenage MP expressed concern about the subsequent damage to US firms. Her concern is particularly acute for their investments in UK facilities and talent. “Making it more difficult to make films in the UK is not in the interests of American businesses,” she said. This interdependence of the U.S. and UK film industries significantly muddies the waters of the narrative of tariffs and trade negotiations.
Debate over Trump’s admittedly ill-fated tariff proposal may be coming to a boil. Stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic are just beginning to consider their impact. That story is still ongoing, with many variables at play in how creative agencies in production and advertising will respond to these possible changes.
Leave a Reply