On September 1, 2026, Hollywood saw the return of an idea the industry has demanded for years: a federal tax credit to keep production in the United States. Donald Trump asked Congress to work on a national incentive for film and television production after speaking with Jon Voight, now one of his symbolic Hollywood intermediaries. The gesture is politically spectacular, but the issue is mainly industrial. Behind the campaign language lies a colder question: how can a country that still dominates the global imagination continue losing the jobs, sets and spending that make that imagination real?
The proposal marks a change in register. Only months ago, Trump was still floating tariffs against films made abroad, a path that is hard to enforce in a sector where works circulate as services, rights, files and licences rather than traditional goods. A tax credit speaks the real language of production. Films and series go where costs are predictable, crews are available, infrastructure is solid and incentives are strong enough to convince a studio to choose one territory over another.
The Los Angeles Times notes that 45 percent of American scripted films and television series were shot outside the country last year, up from roughly 33 percent in 2022. That acceleration is not abstract. It means fewer workdays for technicians, fewer locations, fewer trucks, fewer costumes, fewer sets built, fewer hotel rooms filled and fewer restaurants supported by production crews. Hollywood is not only a red carpet. It is a supply chain, a local economy and a network of trades placed in permanent competition by fiscal globalisation.
That is why the industry’s response was swift. The Motion Picture Association welcomed what it sees as a potential landmark step, while IATSE, the union representing entertainment technicians and craftspeople, says it has been working for months to advance a federal solution. Support from Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator from California and a frequent Trump opponent, gives the issue an unusual colour: cinema has become one of the rare subjects where polarisation can be bypassed through jobs. On a set, politics quickly gives way to paychecks, schedules and working hours.
The figure discussed within the industry, according to several reports, is around a 15 to 20 percent credit on certain costs, especially labour. That level would not replace state programs in places such as Georgia, New York or New Mexico. It would add a national layer able to compete with the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Hungary and other territories that have turned tax incentives into cultural strategy. The battle for contemporary cinema is also won in the spreadsheets of financial officers.
The paradox is that the United States remains the symbolic heart of world cinema, but not necessarily its most obvious workshop. American franchises can shoot in London, Budapest, Vancouver or Sydney, then return to audiences as Hollywood products. The public sees a cultural brand; workers see a geography that is increasingly dispersed. A federal credit would try to reconnect those two realities: if a story is sold as American, a larger share of its making should return to American soil.
For studios, the measure could be more effective than a punitive posture. Producers do not need a patriotic speech to change location; they need a budget that closes. A clear incentive reduces uncertainty, attracts insurance, reassures investors and can keep entire crews working. Netflix, major studios and platforms know that content remains a central weapon, even as subscriptions slow and artificial intelligence is already transforming writing, editing, dubbing and previsualisation.
But the measure also carries risks. A poorly designed credit could subsidise projects that would have been shot in the United States anyway, mostly enrich large groups, or create an even more expensive fiscal competition between territories. The criteria will therefore matter: how much local spending is required, which jobs are protected, what transparency obligations apply, what limits exist for giant budgets, how global platforms are treated, and how real effects are audited. The difference between industrial policy and a tax gift often lies in those details.
This battle is cultural as well. Producing in a place is never neutral. Cities, technicians, sets, extras, studios, suppliers and local constraints all influence images. When production leaves a region for too long, professional memory erodes. Young assistants find fewer entry points, small businesses close, sound stages empty and the industry becomes concentrated around a handful of international hubs. Bringing shoots back also means preserving an ecology of talent.
For B-EMPIRE, this dossier signals a broader shift: creative industries are no longer protected by aura. Music, fashion, sport, cinema and media all have to defend their value chains against mobile capital, platforms, automation and state competition. Hollywood can still manufacture prestige. But to remain a complete power, it must also manufacture work, training and local presence. A federal credit will not save American cinema by itself. It may, however, become the official admission that imagination needs industrial policy if it wants to stay home.
Sources
- Los Angeles Times – Trump calls for federal tax incentives to revive U.S. film industry
- Axios via Yahoo Finance – Trump endorses federal production tax credit
- NCTA – Statement on Federal Tax Incentives for TV and Film Production
- IATSE – Support for a U.S. federal film and television production incentive
- Bloomberg Law – Lawmakers welcome Trump support of U.S. film industry tax breaks
