Trump announces 100% tariffs on movies ‘produced in foreign lands’

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Motivations and Intent

  • Many see the “100% tariff” as another impulsive, TV-driven outburst, not a coherent strategy, though some tie it to recent viewings or grievances.
  • A substantial sub-thread argues there is a real underlying issue: large-scale offshoring of US film and TV production to Canada, the UK, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere for tax credits, cheaper non‑union labor, and weaker labor laws.
    • From this perspective, the move is surprisingly pro‑union/pro‑labor, aimed at bringing back IATSE/Teamsters jobs in LA, Atlanta, New York, etc.
  • Others interpret it primarily as culture-war policy: targeting “foreign propaganda,” punishing Hollywood, and paving the way for greater state control over cultural output.
  • Several commenters frame it within a broader authoritarian, isolationist project (Project 2025, national security rhetoric, defunding PBS/NPR).

Feasibility, Legal Basis, and Implementation

  • Multiple comments note that Trump’s usual emergency-tariff authority (IEEPA) explicitly exempts “informational materials,” including films, so he may lack legal power without new legislation.
  • There is widespread confusion over what “produced in foreign lands” means:
    • Is it about where money comes from (studio nationality) or where physical production occurs (shooting, crews, VFX)?
    • Many US-branded movies are already shot abroad; accounting boundaries are easy to game.
  • Mechanically, people question how a “tariff on movies” would work for digital IP:
    • No clear border crossing for streams; valuation of a master vs. lifetime revenue is unclear.
    • Some suggest it would effectively become a special tax on distribution rights, cinema tickets, DVDs/BDs—functionally similar but not a traditional customs tariff.

Economic and Soft-Power Effects

  • Several note the US is a huge net exporter of film and IP; starting a tariff war risks:
    • Reciprocal taxes on Hollywood content, shrinking its international market.
    • Accelerating the rise of non‑US platforms and local industries, and eroding US cultural “soft power.”
  • Critics expect higher ticket prices, fewer foreign films available in the US, more piracy, and no guarantee of better pay for crews or lower costs for consumers.
  • Supporters argue that if foreign locations win only via subsidies and labor arbitrage, penalizing that is legitimate industrial policy; they see preserving domestic production capacity as strategically important.

Broader Political and Cultural Context

  • Thread includes anxiety about weakened checks and balances, the GOP’s deference to Trump, and lack of realistic institutional resistance (impeachment seen as politically blocked).
  • Side debates cover:
    • Whether Americans should respond with mass protest or more drastic measures.
    • The quality and role of foreign vs. American cinema, and how tax incentives have globalized production.
  • Overall mood tilts toward viewing the announcement as performative, legally shaky, and potentially self‑damaging to US influence, even if it touches a real problem for US film workers.