In the early months of his second term in the White House, United States President Donald Trump unleashed a sequence of tariffs on imported goods. Now, citing Hollywood turmoil in his May 4 Truth Social post, the 47th President argued movies ought to be “made in America, again.”

“The movie industry in America is dying a very fast death,” Trump said, claiming foreign nations are luring filmmakers and studios abroad via tax incentives. Thus, he authorized the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to swiftly impose a 100% tariff on all films “coming into our country that are produced on foreign lands.”

This is not the first time Trump has unfurled his agenda to moviemaking. In January, he sanctioned three of show business’ most prominent right-wing voices, Jon Voight, Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson, to resuscitate the once-dominant American film industry. “They will serve as Special Envoys to me for the purpose of bringing back Hollywood … bigger, better and stronger than ever before,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

With ongoing production efforts from major media companies taking place overseas more than ever before, Trump seeks to curtail the international dispersal of filmmaking. So what does this entail for studios — domestic and international? How might its ramifications trickle down to the consumer experience?

Given the complex nature of contemporary film production and distribution, especially in a post-COVID environment, it’s unclear how such tariffs would feasibly be instituted. The President’s “America First” motive has yet to receive an implementable explanation, with further details yet to surface.

University of Oregon Cinema Studies Professor Michael Aronson deemed the President’s order an unworkable idea — a proposal resulting in more questions than answers.

In the big 2025, the film industry cannot be bottled into broad and undefined labels. It’s challenging to understand which projects the President thinks warrant the descriptor “produced on foreign lands.”

“Are films shot abroad but financed in the U.S. internationally produced?” Aronson said. “Reverse that for U.S.-shot but foreign-financed.”

In all facets — economic, creative and logistical — film production is an intricate endeavor. The content audiences consume, whether in the theater or at home via streaming platforms, is not comparable to other imported goods.

“Films are not products like a wheel of brie or a catalytic converter; they’re considered performances and qualify as an intangible service,” Aronson said. “You can place a tariff on a pair of scissors, but Trump can’t tariff a haircut.”

Moreover, Trump’s plan fails to consider the film industry’s co-pilot: television. Would proposed tariffs extend to TV production? How would tariffs apply to direct-to-streaming content with no box office revenue?

Whether calculations are based on production costs or box office returns, it remains unclear which party is responsible for paying the tariff. Studios, producers, distributors and consumers all play a role in the creation, circulation and profitability of works; Trump needs to define who is ultimately responsible.

If Trump’s orders come to fruition, detrimental consequences could significantly rattle foreign markets and domestic production. “It would kill some of them, but it would also seriously impact U.S. films distributed abroad,” Aronson said. “See Canada taking American whiskey off their shelves.”

If the tariff isn’t implemented, as it realistically cannot be in its current form, the President’s sentiments could still generate discussions surrounding tax incentives for U.S.-based productions, particularly those in Hollywood.

Trump will “continue to put pressure on California to increase its tax incentive program and potentially eliminate its annual cap,” Aronson said. “Los Angeles has been in a bit of a free fall in terms of local production since COVID and the strikes of 2023.”

Part of the exodus, however, stems from other U.S. states’ incentive and tax programs — it’s as much about “places like Georgia, Louisiana and a number of Southwest states, as it is about international productions stealing jobs,” Aronson said.

While Trump’s aggressive call to bring moviemaking back to America underscores a frustration with Hollywood’s shifting economic geography, his proposed solution reveals more political posturing than practical policy. What remains clear is that any meaningful reform must grapple with the globalized, hybrid nature of modern filmmaking — a reality far more complex than the rhetoric suggests.