Hollywood is following the money!

In early May 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump once again made headlines. This time it wasn’t about walls or traditional trade wars – but something as unexpected as Hollywood. Trump has proposed a 100% tariff on films produced outside the borders of the United States, even if they are essentially American productions. It’s a proposal that has shaken not only the U.S. film industry but the entire global film world. From studios in London to production hubs in Australia and Bulgaria – concerns are mounting.

But what does this actually mean in practice? And what are the consequences for those around the world who have invested billions in film productions, built studios, and trained future filmmakers in hopes of international collaboration? Let’s take a closer look.

Background to the decision

Donald Trump has long been a vocal critic of globalization’s effects on American industry. In his latest move, he claims that the American film industry is threatened by foreign subsidies and tax incentives that lure productions away from American soil. According to Trump, this results not only in job losses but also in a cultural loss for the U.S. The tariffs, he argues, are a way to regain control over American film production and stop what he calls a "rapid death" of Hollywood.

But Hollywood is already highly globalized. Many of today’s blockbusters – even those with American actors, directors, and studios – are filmed in Canada, the UK, New Zealand, or the Czech Republic to save money. These countries often offer strong incentives to studios: lower labor costs, tax credits, grant programs, and top-tier filming environments.

And film people are loyal to where the money is. It’s not a moral stance, but a condition for production survival. Incentives dictate logistics and budgets – not patriotism.

U.S. internal reactions

The reactions in the U.S. have been mixed. Film industry unions like the Teamsters have expressed support. They see the potential for more jobs returning to California, Georgia, or New Mexico if foreign filming declines. At the same time, studios like Netflix, Warner Bros, and Disney warn that the tariffs would make their productions more expensive – or completely unfeasible in the U.S. due to cost levels.

A spokesperson for one of the major streaming giants told Variety:

"This is not an attempt to protect American jobs – it’s an attempt to control
an industry that has flourished precisely because of its international character."

Independent filmmakers have also voiced concern about what this might mean for diversity and breadth within American cinema. Genre films, indie productions, and international collaborations may be stifled if the tariffs become a reality.

And even if more films are produced in the U.S. as a result of the tariffs, it is far from certain that this will lead to higher wages or better conditions for film workers. The industry has long pushed margins – and will likely continue to do so, even on home turf.

Global consequences: from Pinewood to Bansko

Internationally, the concern is even greater. Countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia have built up massive infrastructures to attract film productions from the U.S. Pinewood Studios in England – where large parts of Star Wars and James Bond have been filmed – is a prime example. If these films are suddenly taxed upon reentry to the U.S. market, profitability drops drastically.

Australia has expressed concern through its culture minister, warning that tens of thousands of jobs may be lost in the sector. The country has for years used its film industry as an economic driver, both as an export and a tourism magnet.

And smaller countries are also affected. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have become popular filming locations thanks to low costs and skilled craftsmen. In cities like Sofia, international productions have created an entirely new professional class of technicians, set designers, and production staff. These now risk being left without assignments.

But if the international film industry collapses, should we stop making films outside the U.S.? Of course not. The world needs more stories, not fewer – and Hollywood alone cannot carry all the drama, diversity, and perspectives. The rest of the world’s experience is also Hollywood’s experience, for better or worse.

Technical and logistical issues

Even defining what counts as a "foreign-produced" film is a challenge. Many films are shot in multiple countries. A film can have an American director, a British location, Canadian animation, and post-production in India. Which country should the film be taxed as belonging to?

It also opens up loopholes and creative solutions that could undermine the intended effect of the tariffs. Would companies begin registering in the U.S. but in practice shoot abroad? Or maybe simulate parts of the production on American soil?

The price of culture

Film is more than just business – it’s also stories, perspectives, worldviews. Many fear that isolating the U.S. film industry could lead to cultural insularity where fewer international voices and collaborations are included. This is particularly concerning at a time when representation and diversity are central issues in the film world.

"To impose tariffs on stories is to censor the world," as a director from London put it in The Guardian.

For countries that have grown into creative hubs, it’s not just about money – it’s about creative identity, cultural export, and hope for the next generation of filmmakers.

What happens next?

It’s important to note that Trump’s proposal is not yet law. The Department of Commerce has been tasked with exploring the possibilities, but it’s a process that may take time – and much can change politically in the meantime. But for film producers, investors, and financiers worldwide, uncertainty already reigns.

A study from UCLA warns that the uncertainty alone could cause projects to freeze, planned investments to be delayed, or new studios not to be built. The global film economy is highly sensitive to this kind of policy signal.

Other countries might also respond with their own measures. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on films from Canada or Europe, nothing stops those countries from introducing equivalent tariffs on American films. The result could be a global film war where everyone loses.

Historical parallels

This is not the first time political decisions have impacted the film industry. During the Cold War, film was used as a tool in the battle for hearts and minds. Hollywood’s golden age has shifted multiple times depending on political winds. But rarely have we seen such a direct economic measure against the actual production of films, rather than their content.

This proposal is not about traditional censorship, but in practice, the result may be the same: a more homogenized film world where economics determine which stories reach an audience.

A Swedish perspective

For Sweden and other smaller film countries in Europe, the consequences may be both direct and indirect. Swedish technicians, animators, post-production studios, and film workers often participate in international projects. Additionally, Swedish actors and directors – from Alicia Vikander to Ruben Östlund – have received international recognition and built collaborations across borders.

If these collaborations are now at risk of being penalized when launched in the U.S., the appeal of including Swedish resources in international productions diminishes.

A representative from Film i Väst expressed concern in an interview:

"We rely on film being an open and global industry. This threatens our entire model for co-productions."

Final words: Who really wins?

The big question is whether anyone truly wins from the proposal. Sure, a few jobs might return to the U.S. – but at what cost? More expensive films, fewer collaborations, fewer productions. An industry that has grown for decades thanks to internationalization may now enter a regressive era of nationalism.

Trump wants to appear as a protector of American workers. But in his eagerness to “take back Hollywood,” he risks undermining the very industry he claims to want to save.

Film is global. Film is collaboration. Film is voices from around the world. Taxing those voices might silence not just the competition – but the conversation itself.

And in that silence, we all lose.