Trump film Tariff: Here are the winners and losers in Hollywood

Hollywood is the last industry to be introduced in the trade war of President Donald Trump.

Many in the cinema trade were frightened when Trump said that he planned to impose a 100% rate on films produced in foreign countries.

Trump said his goal was to prevent Hollywood from “dying from a very fast death”. But although there are more questions than answers, the initiates of the industry and the analysts said that they thought that the prices could wreak havoc in an entertainment company that already had trouble returning from work strikes and spending reductions.

“It will happen mainly from all over the industry,” said professor of the Nyu entertainment industry, Paul Hardart.

The initiates of the industry said that they feared that prices could increase costs (and potentially sink income if other countries retaliated). But there could also be winners, according to the ultimate plan.

The spokesman for the White House, Kush Desai, said in a statement that “no final decision on the prices of foreign films” had been made and that the administration “explored all the options to deliver the directive of President Trump to protect the national and economic security of our country while making Hollywood Grand.”

Here is an overview of the winners and potential losers if the prices are presented in the cinema.

Potential winner: American film hubs

Foreign countries have long attracted productions with financial incentives. The five main filming destinations were outside the United States, including Vancouver and the United Kingdom, revealed a survey of studio managers by the Production Services Prodpro.

If Trump's prices brought films to the United States, it would benefit the booming hubs beyond the New York. Cities like Atlanta and New Orleans have built cinematographic industries thanks to tax alternatives and the drop in life costs. At least 18 states have Started or enlarged Film incentives since 2021.

Potential loser: producers, directors, actors and writers

Although Trump's prices seem well -intentioned, many in Hollywood are afraid of it.

“The prices may trigger reprisals, inflate costs and block productions – harming even professionals that we aim to support,” said producers United, an organization representing producers, in a press release. Rather, the group pleaded for a federal production discount to counter foreign tax incentives.

Film producer Randy Greenberg wrote On Linkedin This Trump's film price proposal “would have” the opposite effect “of what he hears and” will kill the film industry faster “.

Morgan Stanley's analyst, Ben Swinburne, wrote in a note that the 100% price offered by Trump “would lead to less films, more expensive films and a drop in income for all in the business”.

Potential winner: crew below the line

The clearest beneficiary of film prices would be those of the work in pre-production, production and post-production, said Schuyler Moore, partner of the law firm based in Los Angeles, Greenberg Glusker.

Unlike actors and directors, many of these crew members cannot easily join productions abroad. The same goes for those who are catering or make -up artists. More films made to it would make them more busy.

“It is clearly a positive for the crew under the line,” said Moore. “It's a hammer for everyone.”

However, these workers may not be better if the production of films falls and there are fewer projects overall.

Potential loser: Independent production companies

Independent production companies such as Industry Darlings A24 and Neon can be large losers in prices.

Global outsourcing has helped independent production companies that have less access to financing. Funding for the film is tenuous, so higher costs could mean that fewer films are made. This could also make the cost of India to bring films like the best “parasitic” winner of Neon, which came from South Korea, to the American public.

“If you want to do something to crush the independent sector, that's what you would do,” said Peter Marshall, a former Lionsgate film director who is now a media consultant.

Potential loser: international networks and production companies

Foreign television networks with an exhibition in the United States could be crushed if there are prices or quotas on films or emissions, said analyst Brian Wieser from Madison & Wall.

Sean Furst, producer focused on the overseas, said that European players were trying to reduce their dependence on the American entertainment market. If production abroad is penalized, American producers who turn abroad could also abandon American distribution and look abroad.

“Talk to anyone in Europe, and no one is counting on an American commitment in a financial plan,” said Furst, adding that the price training effect could be a passage to less productions with lower budgets.

Potential winner: IA companies

Hollywood was slow to adopt AI and mainly limited it to tasks such as post-production, special effects and dubbing.

However, the use of AI could accelerate while filmmakers are looking for means to reduce costs. This could mean expansion to the generation of videos from text prompts.

Potential loser: world streamers

The prices have highlighted Netflix, which has the most production and the largest world footprint of American banners. Netflix was considered by certain investors to be resistant to recession after reaching the status of a usefulness type.

We don't really know how prices would be implemented. But Citi Media's analyst Jason Bazinet said that in the worst case for Netflix, he could increase streamer costs by $ 3 billion per year and reach her profit per action by 20%. It calculated this by assuming the Netflix licenses 40% of its total content budget and produced half of the 60% remaining abroad.

However, Bazinet added that Netflix could limit the impact by transferring production to the United States, by reducing access to the United States to foreign manufacturing content on service and increasing prices to cover higher production costs.

Potential loser: the public

Frank Albarella, a KPMG partner who studies the media and telecommunications, said that the prices could “inadvertently force the public to pay more for what could become a narrower creative landscape”.

Mike Proulx of the Forrester Research Company warned that if the prices passed, there could be fewer films as production costs and the prices of cinema tickets and arrow streaming subscriptions.

“In any case, you cut it, this measure is equivalent to consumer pain,” said Proulx.