ne had wondered whether it was only a matter of time before Hollywood, too, became a victim of the sweeping tariff regime that Donald Trump has been so determined to enforce.

Hollywood – the name that gilds American greatness – rose alongside the United States itself. If there is any relationship that has mutually benefited both parties over the course of the 20th Century, it is this. People around the world grew up watching Hollywood films, which enhanced the image of what was first a rising and later the most powerful nation on Earth. For many, the United States was the beautified impression that Hollywood projected – everyone wanted to be part of its plentiful excess.

In manufacturing the American dream, Hollywood played a critical role. It superimposed that image above all else. Other powers struggled to match the sheer scale of this visual messaging and could not counter the mass personification of freedom’s triumph over tyranny.

Then there was the glamour – the extravagance and glorification of excess. The allure of beautiful women, yielding to those who overcame challenges defined and sealed by the rules of Hollywood, only added to its myth.

Hollywood became so dominant and so rewarding in terms of fame and fortune that film industries across the world were pulled into its orbit. Those that resisted remained on the margins. One still hears stories of how Indian film stars were praised or offered roles by the likes of William Wyler, Elia Kazan and David Lean. For many, this was the ultimate pinnacle – even for stars from India, the largest film industry in the world.

But what did the Hollywood hero stand for? The victory of good over evil. In that narrative, good meant the values of the free world – freedom, democracy and the market economy. The evil was embodied by fascism and communism. The latter were portrayed as dark and sinister. The human potential was shown to lie in the fulfilment of the ideals of the free world.

Trump wants production brought back to American soil. But in today’s global economy, where the profit motive drives decisions and capital moves freely, the production process cannot be easily localised.”

It is still too early to say what the implications of the tariffs will be or the exact scope of their enforcement. But from the few statements that have emerged, a clear line is visible: large American production houses that shoot outside the United States are being told to bring their activities back home. These companies operate abroad primarily due to lower production costs, though the final products are still marketed as American. As a result, the issues are often seen as domestic.

The biggest international market for American films is China. If tariffs are imposed, these films will become more expensive for Chinese importers – and, in turn, for Chinese audiences. Higher costs could reduce viewership, hurting sales and affecting box office performance. Trump wants production brought back to American soil. But in today’s global economy, where the profit motive drives decisions and capital moves freely, the production process cannot be easily localised. Various companies and countries now specialise in different components of filmmaking, making the process inherently international.

This is the challenge the Trump administration has taken on – and it runs counter to the economic logic of capital, which was significantly enabled by the globalisation framework put in place through the World Trade Organisation following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Hollywood, which has already been struggling with challenges brought on by Covid-19 and the shift to streaming platforms and online services, now faces a complex new landscape. With differing interpretations of what freedom of expression means, there is growing fear that a certain segment of films, particularly those with more objectivity, may also fall prey to this sweeping redefinition, extending beyond just economics and policy.

The writer is a culture critic based in Lahore.