President Donald Trump has stated multiple times that foreign tax breaks have "stolen" the film industry from the US. He has characterised international production as both an economic danger and, occasionally, a national security risk. His proposed solution: a 100% tariff on films produced outside the United States.
It sounds as though Hollywood would need to start again from scratch.
In practice, the obstacles are substantial.
In short: tariffs are designed for physical goods. Film is a global digital service.
First, movies are not things you can buy; they are services.
Most of them are sent digitally, not by mail. There is not a clear "border moment" where a tariff could be applied without completely changing how US trade law treats digital property.
Second, trade lawyers point out that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act explicitly protects the free flow of "informational materials".
Third, major productions are global collaborations by design: US studios, international crews, overseas locations, cross-border financing. In many circumstances, a levy on "foreign films" can punish American businesses for how modern production actually works.
The Motion Picture Association has warned that counter-tariffs or screen quotas from other countries could seriously damage the US industry's trade surplus in film and television.
Support for the idea exists, framed as "bringing production home."
However, many people, including state governments, studios, streamers, unions, and independent filmmakers, are opposed to tariffs.
The underlying challenge is whether policies that are meant for physical things can change a global, digital, collaborative production system substantially without making it smaller.
And if that did happen, when would the industry see production start to slow down?