President Donald Trump announced in a Truth Social post on Sept. 29 that he plans to enact a 100% tariff on “any and all movies that are made outside of the United States.”
While there isn’t a concrete timeline in place, and Trump has threatened such tariffs in the past, the announcement still sent shockwaves throughout the film community, including here on campus.
Teddy Champion, an instructor in journalism and creative media, said that he isn’t sure how realistic the plan is.
“First of all, I really don’t know how seriously to take this, since I feel like many of Trump’s proposals are just talk,” Champion said. “Is he targeting American companies, or is he targeting international companies?”
Maddie Moore, a sophomore majoring in creative media, agrees that the tariffs may not have the impact that they’re meant to.
“From my understanding, the tariffs are meant to promote domestic production of films, but I have doubts that they would have the effect that’s desired,” Moore said. “I think it would only serve to discourage foreign films from being viewed by the masses, and that would be a tragedy.”
As well as the questionable impacts that the tariffs may have, Champion also highlighted how difficult they may be to enforce.
“In many cases, it’s impossible to decipher what comprises a foreign film and a domestic film,” he said. “If a film is shot mostly in the United States, but has a scene that takes place in Paris, do you calculate the percentage shot out of the country and come up with a tariff?”
Leah Bethea, a junior majoring in creative media, said that the tariffs would do “more harm than good.”
“Even though it may push studios to film more in the U.S. and create jobs here, the downsides are heavier,” she said. “It would mean higher costs, fewer films being made or released, and less cultural variety for audiences. Other countries could also hit back with their own tariffs, which would hurt American films overseas and make international collaboration harder.”
Despite the apparent downsides, there are also potential benefits to the tariffs. Moore highlighted some of them, specifically that “trying to promote American filmmaking is a good thing.”
“I think it is important to boost the local entertainment industry over any others,” she said. “We should actively engage with our own entertainment companies, and if there were ever a risk of them being taken from us, we would lose our voice as a collective.”
However, even with some benefits, the consensus among the film community is that if imposed, the tariffs would have an overwhelmingly negative impact.
“The big picture is that Hollywood is a global industry that has established practices across the world, so it will be difficult to rewrite that business model,” Champion said. “If Trump’s goal is to protect American jobs in the film industry, there are better ways to do that. We should celebrate production all over the world, so I hope there are no restrictions that affect independent filmmakers.”
Specifically for film students at the Capstone, the tariffs could affect them when it comes to looking for jobs post-graduation.
“For someone going into creative media, this could mean fewer chances to work on global projects, though it might boost demand for local film crews,” Bethea said.
Moore, on the other hand, said that she can see the “impact” these tariffs could have on her future career and the artform as a whole.
“If they do influence things, it would be on a higher scale than what would affect me personally,” Moore said. “If that happens, I think production quality is likely to take a huge hit. When the emphasis is more on quantity than quality, those who truly care about film as an artform will suffer.”
