Latest / Uncensored Objection / Trump’s Hollywood Tariff: Political Payback, Not Economic Policy

Transcript

Trump’s Hollywood Tariff: Political Payback, Not Economic Policy · Uncensored Objection

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: You know,
• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: just when you think Hollywood's seen every possible plot twist,
• 0:03
  SPEAKER_00: something genuinely,
• 0:06
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 0:06
  SPEAKER_00: bizarre pops up.
• 0:07
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
• 0:08
  SPEAKER_02: What's the latest?
• 0:09
  This idea floated out there of a 100% tariff on movies produced
• 0:14
  outside the U.S.
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_02: 100%.
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_02: Seriously?
• 0:17
  SPEAKER_02: Wow.
• 0:18
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 0:19
  It's the kind of thing that makes you wonder what script writer
• 0:21
  dreamed that one up.
• 0:22
  SPEAKER_02: Well, it's definitely headline grabbing.
• 0:25
  SPEAKER_02: But what's fascinating and maybe a bit perplexing is the...
• 0:28
  the rationale behind something so drastic exactly so today
• 0:32
  we're diving into that
• 0:33
  looking at what it could actually mean and crucially trying to
• 0:36
  figure out the
• 0:36
  thinking behind it and we're drawing on some specific
• 0:38
  commentary yeah we're looking
• 0:40
  at insights from attorney Mitch Jackson he wrote about this on
• 0:43
  his uncensored
• 0:44
  objection Substack and also the let's say animated responses
• 0:48
  it's already getting
• 0:49
  SPEAKER_02: from industry folks okay sounds like there's plenty to unpack
• 0:52
  SPEAKER_00: For sure.
• 0:53
  SPEAKER_00: We've got Mitch Jackson's take,
• 0:55
  SPEAKER_00: reactions from studios,
• 0:57
  SPEAKER_00: streaming execs,
• 0:59
  SPEAKER_00: basically trying to get to the core of it and give you,
• 1:02
  SPEAKER_00: the listener,
• 1:03
  SPEAKER_00: a clearer picture of what might be going on.
• 1:05
  SPEAKER_00: This whole thing really gained steam with Mitch Jackson's analysis,
• 1:08
  SPEAKER_00: so that's a good place to start.
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 1:10
  SPEAKER_01: So what was his initial reaction?
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_01: Knowing his perspectives, I imagine he had thoughts.
• 1:14
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, definitely.
• 1:16
  SPEAKER_00: He doesn't really pull any punches, does he?
• 1:18
  SPEAKER_01: Not usually, no.
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_00: He straight up calls these proposed tariffs a terrible idea,
• 1:23
  which honestly seems to align with what most people in the
• 1:25
  industry are thinking.
• 1:26
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 1:26
  SPEAKER_02: Terrible idea.
• 1:27
  SPEAKER_02: But did he elaborate on why beyond just the obvious economic disruption?
• 1:32
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 1:32
  SPEAKER_00: And this is where it gets really interesting.
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_00: His read on the motive is key.
• 1:36
  SPEAKER_00: He suggests this isn't some like carefully crafted economic policy.
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_02: So not about boosting the U.S.
• 1:42
  SPEAKER_02: film autonomy necessarily.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: That's the argument.
• 1:45
  The idea Mitch Jackson puts forward is that it's more about
• 1:49
  flexing influence,
• 1:50
  SPEAKER_00: staying relevant,
• 1:51
  SPEAKER_00: maybe trying to exert some kind of control over an industry that,
• 1:55
  SPEAKER_00: let's face it,
• 1:55
  SPEAKER_00: hasn't exactly been welcoming.
• 1:58
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 1:58
  SPEAKER_02: A largely anti-Trump industry, as he points out.
• 2:01
  SPEAKER_02: He even makes this sort of sarcastic comparison.
• 2:03
  SPEAKER_00: To The Apprentice getting canceled.
• 2:05
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:05
  SPEAKER_00: Like it's about reclaiming some kind of spotlight.
• 2:07
  SPEAKER_02: It's a provocative take.
• 2:09
  And he suggests maybe following Governor Newsom for actual
• 2:13
  facts on the industry instead.
• 2:15
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
• 2:15
  SPEAKER_00: basically saying,
• 2:16
  look elsewhere for reliable info on what's really happening in
• 2:20
  California's film sector.
• 2:21
  SPEAKER_02: Well,
• 2:22
  that perspective certainly resonates with the shock and
• 2:26
  disbelief we're hearing
• 2:27
  SPEAKER_02: from inside the industry itself.
• 2:29
  SPEAKER_00: Shock is maybe putting it mildly.
• 2:30
  We're hearing reports that some executives were just,
• 2:34
  well,
• 2:35
  apoplectic is the word being used.
• 2:36
  SPEAKER_01: Apoplectic.
• 2:37
  SPEAKER_01: That's strong.
• 2:38
  SPEAKER_00: It is.
• 2:39
  SPEAKER_00: And their concerns are pretty stark.
• 2:41
  Some are quoted saying this could trigger a virtually complete
• 2:44
  halt of production.
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_01: Wow.
• 2:46
  SPEAKER_01: Not just a slowdown, but a halt.
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 2:49
  SPEAKER_00: Think about the implications of that.
• 2:50
  And then the fundamental questions about whether this is even
• 2:53
  legal or enforceable.
• 2:54
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 2:55
  The argument being that movies aren't exactly widgets you can
• 2:58
  just slap a tariff on
• 3:00
  SPEAKER_02: at the border.
• 3:00
  SPEAKER_02: They're more like intellectual property or services.
• 3:02
  SPEAKER_00: Precisely.
• 3:03
  SPEAKER_00: The basic pushback is.
• 3:06
  SPEAKER_00: Where's the jurisdiction?
• 3:08
  SPEAKER_00: How would you even implement this?
• 3:09
  SPEAKER_00: It sounds like a logistical nightmare, frankly.
• 3:12
  SPEAKER_02: Though to play devil's advocate for a second,
• 3:14
  hasn't the idea of runaway production been raised in connection
• 3:17
  with this?
• 3:18
  SPEAKER_00: It has, yeah.
• 3:19
  SPEAKER_00: That's the counterpoint you sometimes hear that this is maybe,
• 3:23
  maybe a clumsy attempt to address the valid concern about
• 3:27
  American jobs going
• 3:28
  SPEAKER_00: overseas for filming.
• 3:29
  SPEAKER_02: Okay, so acknowledging that concern exists.
• 3:32
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 3:32
  SPEAKER_00: The term runaway production itself, just for clarity, means U.S.
• 3:36
  SPEAKER_00: projects filming abroad,
• 3:37
  SPEAKER_00: often chasing those better financial deals,
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 3:40
  SPEAKER_00: tax breaks,
• 3:40
  SPEAKER_00: cheaper labor.
• 3:41
  SPEAKER_02: It's a longstanding issue.
• 3:42
  SPEAKER_02: But this proposed solution.
• 3:44
  SPEAKER_00: Seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, doesn't it?
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_00: And the market reaction kind of tells the story, too.
• 3:49
  SPEAKER_00: Netflix, other entertainment stocks, they dipped.
• 3:53
  Yeah,
• 3:53
  the initial reports mentioned confusing comments causing
• 3:56
  investor jitters.
• 3:57
  SPEAKER_02: Not exactly a vote of confidence.
• 3:59
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 4:00
  SPEAKER_00: And Jay Shurers over at United Talent Agency, he was pretty blunt.
• 4:04
  SPEAKER_00: He said the tariff, as proposed, quote, doesn't make sense.
• 4:08
  SPEAKER_02: Doesn't mince words either.
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_00: Nope.
• 4:10
  SPEAKER_00: And he lays out why.
• 4:11
  SPEAKER_00: He acknowledges talent might prefer working closer to home.
• 4:14
  SPEAKER_00: Sure.
• 4:15
  SPEAKER_00: But the financial reality.
• 4:17
  SPEAKER_02: The cost savings overseas are just too big to ignore.
• 4:20
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_00: Lower labor costs, those government rebates.
• 4:24
  SPEAKER_00: They're huge factors.
• 4:25
  Schur's point is that this tariff idea completely ignores those
• 4:29
  fundamental economic drivers.
• 4:30
  SPEAKER_00: You can't just wish them away.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_02: And he connects this to the industry's recent turbulence, right?
• 4:35
  SPEAKER_02: The strikes, the slowdowns.
• 4:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
• 4:37
  SPEAKER_00: he warns this could bring the movie business to a standstill,
• 4:40
  SPEAKER_00: which,
• 4:40
  SPEAKER_00: I mean,
• 4:41
  SPEAKER_00: given the recent challenges,
• 4:42
  SPEAKER_00: sounds pretty alarming.
• 4:43
  SPEAKER_00: It underscores how fragile things might feel for some right now.
• 4:46
  SPEAKER_02: It really does.
• 4:47
  SPEAKER_02: And it brings us back to those practical legal questions.
• 4:50
  SPEAKER_02: How do you even define a movie as foreign for tariff purposes?
• 4:54
  SPEAKER_00: That's the million dollar question, isn't it?
• 4:56
  SPEAKER_00: Are movies goods, services, intellectual property?
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_00: Can you even apply traditional tariffs?
• 5:03
  SPEAKER_02: It's a definitional mess.
• 5:04
  SPEAKER_02: What about co-productions between countries?
• 5:07
  SPEAKER_00: Or a movie set overseas but financed by a U.S.
• 5:10
  SPEAKER_00: studio?
• 5:11
  SPEAKER_00: Where do you draw the line?
• 5:12
  SPEAKER_00: It just opens up a massive can of worms.
• 5:14
  SPEAKER_02: And then there's the other justification floated.
• 5:17
  SPEAKER_02: National security.
• 5:18
  SPEAKER_00: Slight scoff.
• 5:20
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 5:21
  SPEAKER_00: That one's something.
• 5:22
  The idea that having a film crew shoot in,
• 5:25
  say,
• 5:25
  London or Budapest is somehow a threat to U.S.
• 5:28
  SPEAKER_00: national security.
• 5:29
  SPEAKER_02: It does seem to stretch credulity quite a bit, doesn't it?
• 5:32
  SPEAKER_00: Just a tad.
• 5:33
  SPEAKER_00: Understandably, this whole thing has caused quite a stir.
• 5:36
  Executives have apparently reached out to Commerce Secretary
• 5:39
  Howard Letnick.
• 5:40
  SPEAKER_02: And his response.
• 5:41
  SPEAKER_00: A brief, we're on it, message on X.
• 5:45
  Which,
• 5:45
  you know,
• 5:46
  acknowledges the concern,
• 5:47
  I guess,
• 5:47
  but doesn't exactly clarify things.
• 5:48
  Doesn't really instill confidence that the proposal itself is
• 5:51
  being rethought,
• 5:52
  perhaps?
• 5:53
  SPEAKER_00: Not explicitly, no.
• 5:54
  And then there's the suggestion that Trump plans to meet with
• 5:57
  Hollywood executives
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_00: before making a final decision.
• 6:00
  SPEAKER_02: Oh, to get their input.
• 6:01
  Well,
• 6:01
  the stated reason is to make sure they're happy about it,
• 6:04
  which,
• 6:04
  given the history there.
• 6:05
  SPEAKER_02: Right.
• 6:06
  The sudden concern for Hollywood's happiness does feel a little,
• 6:10
  well,
• 6:10
  sarcastic almost.
• 6:12
  Yeah.
• 6:13
  SPEAKER_00: It invites a certain amount of cynicism.
• 6:15
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 6:15
  SPEAKER_00: I mean,
• 6:16
  SPEAKER_00: there have been past engagements,
• 6:18
  SPEAKER_00: meetings with figures like John Voight,
• 6:20
  SPEAKER_00: Mel Gibson,
• 6:21
  SPEAKER_00: Stallone.
• 6:22
  SPEAKER_02: Sure.
• 6:22
  But weren't those discussions usually about different things
• 6:25
  like tax incentives
• 6:26
  SPEAKER_02: for domestic production?
• 6:27
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 6:28
  The reports mentioned a meeting with Voight at Mar-a-Lago
• 6:31
  focused on reviving the
• 6:32
  SPEAKER_00: American film industry through tax incentives.
• 6:36
  SPEAKER_00: Tariffs weren't really part of that specific conversation, it seems.
• 6:39
  SPEAKER_02: So this punitive approach feels like a shift.
• 6:42
  SPEAKER_00: It does.
• 6:42
  And then you get the official White House statement from Kush
• 6:45
  Desai talking about
• 6:46
  SPEAKER_00: exploring all options to,
• 6:48
  SPEAKER_00: quote,
• 6:49
  safeguard our country's national and economic security while
• 6:52
  making Hollywood great again.
• 6:54
  SPEAKER_02: Making Hollywood great again.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_02: There's a certain irony there, given the industry's general reaction.
• 7:00
  SPEAKER_00: You could say that.
• 7:01
  It sounds maybe like they're trying to manage the fallout a bit,
• 7:03
  soften the edges.
• 7:05
  SPEAKER_00: But the core idea seems to remain.
• 7:07
  SPEAKER_02: And it's important to remember the context here.
• 7:09
  SPEAKER_02: This runaway production isn't new.
• 7:11
  SPEAKER_00: Not at all.
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_00: It's driven by real factors.
• 7:14
  SPEAKER_00: Big tax breaks and incentives,
• 7:16
  SPEAKER_00: not just in other countries like the U.K.,
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_00: France,
• 7:18
  SPEAKER_00: Germany,
• 7:19
  SPEAKER_00: Hungary.
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_02: But even in other U.S.
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_02: states, right?
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_02: Georgia, Louisiana.
• 7:23
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 7:24
  SPEAKER_00: So companies are making rational economic decisions.
• 7:27
  SPEAKER_00: Variety reported on the reaction in Europe.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_00: Shock and disbelief.
• 7:31
  SPEAKER_00: This would disrupt a whole global ecosystem.
• 7:34
  And Trump's own explanation was that other countries are,
• 7:37
  what,
• 7:37
  stealing the movies?
• 7:38
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that was the phrase used.
• 7:40
  SPEAKER_00: And the proposed fix is a tariff on incoming movies,
• 7:45
  SPEAKER_00: potentially even hitting films financed and distributed by U.S.
• 7:49
  SPEAKER_00: companies, but simply filmed elsewhere.
• 7:51
  Which seems counterintuitive if the goal is supporting American companies.
• 7:54
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 7:55
  SPEAKER_00: And the Motion Picture Association's own data shows the U.S.
• 7:58
  SPEAKER_00: film industry actually runs a significant trade surplus.
• 8:01
  SPEAKER_02: But there's a catch there, isn't there?
• 8:03
  Does that data clearly separate out films financed domestically
• 8:06
  but shot abroad?
• 8:08
  SPEAKER_00: That's the ambiguity.
• 8:09
  SPEAKER_00: It's not entirely clear,
• 8:11
  which makes it harder to assess the real economic impact of
• 8:14
  where films are shot
• 8:15
  SPEAKER_00: versus financed.
• 8:16
  SPEAKER_02: So we circle back to the sheer difficulty of actually doing this.
• 8:19
  SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
• 8:20
  SPEAKER_00: How do you tax a movie primarily set in Italy?
• 8:24
  SPEAKER_00: What about US-UK co-production?
• 8:28
  SPEAKER_00: Jay Schur has raised a great point.
• 8:30
  SPEAKER_00: Is there a threshold?
• 8:32
  Like if you shoot overseas for two weeks,
• 8:34
  does that trigger the tariff versus two months?
• 8:37
  SPEAKER_02: It's completely undefined.
• 8:38
  And has anyone speculated if this is maybe targeted,
• 8:41
  like aimed at Canada specifically?
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_00: There's been some chatter about that.
• 8:44
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 8:45
  Canada offers very attractive incentives and gets a lot of that
• 8:47
  runaway business.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_00: So is it punitive towards them?
• 8:51
  SPEAKER_00: Who knows?
• 8:51
  SPEAKER_02: Which leads to the broader question about motivation.
• 8:54
  SPEAKER_02: One industry source was quoted asking pretty bluntly.
• 8:57
  SPEAKER_00: Is he trolling us because we didn't vote for him?
• 9:00
  SPEAKER_02: Yeah, that kind of sums up the suspicion, doesn't it?
• 9:02
  SPEAKER_02: That this might be more about politics or payback than policy.
• 9:06
  SPEAKER_00: It really gets to the heart of the skepticism you're hearing.
• 9:09
  SPEAKER_00: And think about the practical impact on huge global franchises.
• 9:12
  SPEAKER_02: Like James Bond or Harry Potter.
• 9:14
  SPEAKER_00: Or Dune.
• 9:15
  These rely on international locations or even smaller scale
• 9:18
  like Emily in Paris.
• 9:19
  Can you realistically recreate Paris convincingly on a backlot
• 9:22
  in Burbank?
• 9:23
  SPEAKER_02: Probably not with the same effect, no.
• 9:25
  SPEAKER_02: The location is often part of the appeal, part of the story.
• 9:29
  SPEAKER_00: So when you step back and look at all of this,
• 9:31
  SPEAKER_00: you have the industry action,
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_00: the legal questions,
• 9:34
  SPEAKER_00: the practical hurdles,
• 9:35
  SPEAKER_00: the questionable rationale.
• 9:37
  SPEAKER_02: It really does start to look less like a serious economic proposal.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_00: Right.
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_00: It lines up more with what Mitch Jackson suggested initially.
• 9:45
  Maybe this is less about tariffs and trade and more about
• 9:48
  exerting control or just
• 9:49
  SPEAKER_00: grabbing attention.
• 9:50
  It seems the overwhelming consensus within the industry and
• 9:53
  based on the practical
• 9:54
  SPEAKER_02: challenges is that this idea just doesn't have much credibility.
• 9:58
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
• 9:58
  SPEAKER_00: that feels like the main takeaway here,
• 10:00
  SPEAKER_00: these proposed tariffs,
• 10:02
  SPEAKER_00: viewed by many,
• 10:03
  SPEAKER_00: including commentators like Mitch Jackson,
• 10:05
  as perhaps a misguided attempt to influence Hollywood rather
• 10:10
  than a workable
• 10:11
  SPEAKER_00: economic strategy.
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_02: The concerns about the potential damage,
• 10:14
  SPEAKER_02: the legal question marks,
• 10:16
  SPEAKER_02: they're widespread and,
• 10:17
  SPEAKER_02: frankly,
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_02: pretty hard to dismiss.
• 10:19
  SPEAKER_00: Definitely.
• 10:20
  SPEAKER_00: Makes you think, doesn't it?
• 10:21
  About the wider implications when policy ideas seem driven by
• 10:24
  something other than,
• 10:26
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 10:26
  SPEAKER_00: solid reasoning or clear objectives.
• 10:28
  SPEAKER_02: It's a point worth pondering for sure.
• 10:31
  What happens when creative industries get caught in these kinds
• 10:34
  of political cross currents?
• 10:35
  SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
• 10:36
  SPEAKER_00: Something for you, the listener, to consider.
• 10:39
  SPEAKER_00: And hey,
• 10:40
  if you want to keep up with Mitch Jackson's analysis on this
• 10:43
  and other issues too,
• 10:44
  SPEAKER_00: definitely check out his uncensored objection sub stack.
• 10:47
  Good reminder,
• 10:48
  you can subscribe there,
• 10:49
  share the articles,
• 10:50
  jump into the comments section.
• 10:52
  Well worth a follow if you find this kind of legal and
• 10:54
  political intersection interesting.