Entering President Donald Trump’s fourth month in office, communities around the world are beginning to see the global impacts of his presidency. Among the several economy-based propositions, some failed, but many executed, Donald Trump has officially pulled cinema into the conversation. On May 4th, 2025, Trump publicly stated on his Truth Social platform that, “The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death. Other countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!” (COLVIN and COYLE). Amidst the anecdotal, provocation-driven claims, there is some truth behind Trump’s words: American film is dying. In a short span of time, Hollywood has suffered a dire loss in creativity, profit, and passion. In 2024, U.S. box office earnings totaled approximately $8.7 billion, marking a 3% decrease from 2023 and remaining over 30% below pre-pandemic levels, which consistently exceeded $11 billion annually (Sidiqi). Evidently, due to the compounding factors that, in some cases, cannot be controlled, the American film industry and its reputation have significantly declined in the span of half a decade. However, claims that feed into the bigoted narrative that subjects all nations outside of the United States as malicious only lead to nationwide ignorance. In order to form a proper and critical perspective on proposed policies, it is important to explore them and what they could mean if realized on a global scale.
Before diving into a deeper exploration of the significance of international films to the American film industry, we must first understand the logistics behind a 100% tariff. When a tariff of any percentage is applied to internationally imported commodities, the cost of importing will increase by that percentage for its country of manufacture. For example, if a film costs an international film studio 200 dollars to produce, not taking into account a separate budget for categories that are equally as important to the production of the film like promotion, cast salaries, and equipment, to allow it to be legally consumed by American audiences, the studio must pay a taxation of 100% of the original 200 dollars used to create the film. Now, the international film studio, company, or independent film crew must pay $400 for their film to be received in the United States, home to some of the most successful and historically influential film communities in the world. For many production companies, directors, and filmmakers, this proposed tariff is seen as dangerous. Many nations outside of the United States do not have domestic film industries as mainstream as Hollywood, making it disproportionately challenging for them to work with objectively high budgets. Naturally, this means that paying an extra 100% of the original budget is highly unappealing and virtually impossible. This, in many ways, hurts the morale of international film communities, as American recognition is one of the most vital factors to success at the global level. Additionally, this financial burden could lead to a decrease in foreign (relative to the United States) filmmaking.
A reduction of international film production sparks many different conversations within the realm of filmmaking. How exactly might different countries react to their culture not being welcome in the United States? Historically, this has always been an issue at several levels; however, when it becomes one that is explicitly apparent and directly rooted in corrupt systemic values, the issue begins to affect and target different aspects of culture. Within the specific context of film, if a certain country is being made out to be an adversary against a country that is infamous for its immorality, the contents of what is produced can change radically. The possibility of there being a rise in political and anti-American films becomes increasingly likely. Although my previous sentiments are Eurocentric by assuming that international films must always be in conversation with the United States, the possibility still stands. As Trump’s presidency continues, and nations begin to stop affiliating themselves with the United States, international resistance is justified. “Foreign” countries may begin to produce cinema that rejects and further protests the racist and morally corrupt assertions against them.
What exactly could it mean if, over the span of four years, a specific genre of film became prevalent in numerous countries? There is no doubt that trends and movements define certain eras of art, film, music, and literature, however, the scale in which these movements have prevailed is long. For example, surrealism and magical realism in film hit Latin America during the mid-20th century. From 1940-1970, these themes practically dominated all of Latin American cinema and culture. Rooted in 1920s and 1930s literature, Latinx authors produced proclaimed bodies of written work that quickly became the nexus of Latinx people globally. The reason why magical realism is such an imperative genre and arguably the mindset in Latin America is because of its foundations in Indigenous, pre-colonial beliefs. Magical realism captures what the quotidian was when the land was still treated as a deity, before religion was imposed on innocent peoples, and before what we now consider “American” ideals existed. Even today, we see Latinx filmmakers, like Colombian director Laura Mora, create masterworks that perpetually implement certain magical realist details and beliefs because, to many, it is considered the core of Latin American culture. All this goes to say that one particular movement, regardless of which time period it was created in, can have lasting effects. We do not know what this surge, if any, could be; however, whatever may happen within these next four years could become a theme as fundamental to nations feeling attacked by the United States as magical realism is to Latin American art.
The impact that international films have had on American film and culture is imperative to the understanding of the severity of Donald Trump’s proposition. Historically, American film was always inspired by other nations’ cinema and traditions. The very first film was made in England in 1888, and while it only took a year or two for the very first American film to be produced, the inherent nature of America’s unoriginality and lack of proper recognition of those before them is present. Some of the most popular early American films are Westerns: movies about daily life in the western United States. In these films, Indigenous Americans, Mexicans, and other minorities were always depicted. In fact, some of the biggest themes and plots of these films are directly connected to the non-white cultures that existed both historically and in cinema. It raises the question of how heavily dependent even the earliest forms of American cinema were on other people. As we move to the 50s and 60s, more international influences on American films become prevalent. The French New Wave was one of the most pivotal movements for how American and other nations’ cinema was created. Composed of ambiguity, handheld camera movement, location shooting, and meta-cinema, movies created in France by French New Wave pioneers like Jean-Luc Godard and Jacques Demy redefined film forever. It is not uncommon for the average film consumer to lack extensive knowledge of the roots and histories behind various film practices, but this problem becomes serious when it exists within the person who makes the most important decisions for the United States of America.
In an interview with David Price, many opinions on the previous sentiments were expressed. As a film enthusiast and well-informed citizen of the United States, Price shared with me that this tariff is more likely to affect Americans than other countries. Although possible that certain themes may arise, Price noted that it would be virtually impossible for major film industries like Bollywood and Japanese animation as a whole to be affected by a loss in American audiences. If anything, it would be the American audience that would be upset with a decline in genres of film and television so popular. To support this, Price mentioned the British proposal to add a tax on streaming services, like Netflix, in order to fund British dramas and channels like the BBC in hopes of preserving their own media. I found this insight sensible, as it is likely the priority of many nations to ensure that their own politics and culture are safe. When asked how exactly he thinks that Trump’s tariff could affect American cinema, Price provided many thoughtful answers. He explored the different types of films that could be affected by this proposal. Starting with big blockbuster movies such as Marvel and the Mission: Impossible franchise, he notes that they would most likely first see these effects during the recording process. Many of these million-dollar-budget movies are filmed in locations outside of the United States in hopes of being frugal. With this tariff, however, these films would have no choice but to stay within the United States, which would also affect the impressive international scenes that, to audiences, reflect the true budget of these films. Transitioning into the trajectory of the smaller, less-known American films, Price expressed that he felt nervous. Knowing that these particular films do not have the same protection from Hollywood and big sponsors, it is plausible that they would get the short end of the stick and produce fewer movies. Price then said that this was particularly worrying because, without these films, ones that perpetually encompass more nuanced and diverse perspectives and themes, American audiences would truly be less exposed to critical media. Subsequently, this lack of consumption would be reflected in the future directors of our generation. Price mentioned that all directors, even the most right-wing Americans like Mel Gibson, not only explicitly take inspiration from international films, but also create movies totally about non-American cultures, due to their exposure to foreign themes early on. If there is a decline in internationally made films in the United States, it could likely change the trajectory of American cinema in the long run.
Understanding the positive impact that international film has had on the global film industry is important, as film and art are two of the most crucial ways of understanding history at both the individual and communal levels. They provide us with perspectives and ideologies that do not exist in every culture. Some of the most renowned films created by “foreigners” are the same films that have completely changed how filmmakers and viewers alike understand the world around them. An imposition of a 100% tariff on international films could be harmful in so many different ways, but if passed, it could revolutionize and create an interesting spike in political and anti-American films for the next four or hundreds of years.