Trump’s proposed 100% tariff on films made outside the US sounds worrying. But how feasible is it, really?

President Donald Trump has said several times that foreign tax breaks have "stolen" the film industry from the US. He has called international production both an economic danger and, at times, a national security risk. His proposed response: a 100% tariff on films produced outside the United States.

It sounds like Hollywood is going to have to start again from scratch.

In practice, the obstacles are significant.

In short: tariffs are designed for physical goods. Film is a global digital service.

First, movies aren't things you can buy; they're services.

Most of them are sent digitally, not by mail. There isn't 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 really 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.”

But many people, including state governments, studios, streamers, unions, and independent filmmakers, are against tariffs.

The underlying challenge is whether policies that are meant for physical things can change a global, digital, collaborative production system in a big way without making it smaller.

And if that did happen, when would the industry see production start to slow down?