President Donald Trump’s tariffs on foreign-made movies alluded to culture as a soft power resource and highlighted films’ role—Hollywood being a yardstick—in the global competition for soft power. Whether you are a Star Wars fanatic, or an imitator of Kung Fu moves, soft power spreads its tentacles everywhere.
United States President Donald Trump’s announcement of 100 percent tariffs on movies not made on American soil elicited criticism from filmmakers and film experts. As is the norm, commentators decried America’s isolationist strategy and spelled doom for the US film industry. But few, if any, analysed the president’s text to decipher his thinking and interest.
An overlooked part of the Truth Social post characterised non-American-based film production as a “national security threat” and foreign tax incentives as a veil of “messaging and propaganda.”
If Trump had the right words, he would have alluded to film as an instrument of soft power, which the text suggests. Trump argued that countries were winning the information war by attracting filmmakers to their destinations. That argument points to culture as a soft power resource, and film is a carrier of culture.
Soft power
Soft power refers to a country’s ability to achieve its goals not through coercion or payment but through attraction. The late Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power” in his seminal work in the post-Cold War period, which was marked by public opinion that America’s role and global standing were declining. While Nye recognised the US’s decrease in economic power, he prophesied a power shift, noting that the power determinants of yesteryear—military might and conquest—were giving way to a new era in which power would be defined not by population size or geographical location but by technology and education.
In this new world, “hard power”—military power—was not enough to win others, and new power resources—effective communication and multinational corporations—were essential to persuading others.
Origins of film as a tool of cultural influence
A country draws its soft power from cultural elements that are perceived as attractive to others. This includes political values and foreign policies—if they are perceived to be legitimate. Culture as a soft power resource was evident during the First and Second World Wars. America established parallel offices to disseminate accurate information and disinformation, the latter comprising a successful effort to remake Hollywood as a propaganda tool.
The government’s disinformation service suggested additions and deletions to films depicting America’s way of life and “secrets to its success.” Hollywood executives were aligned with the US government in its wartime propaganda efforts, and the film industry was instrumental in promoting the country and its values.
During the First World War, the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry sent a memo to President Woodrow Wilson saying, “The motion picture can be the most wonderful system for spreading national propaganda at little or no cost.” The memo gave way to cooperation between the industry and the Wilson administration in using film as a vehicle for American values. As told by Matthew Fraser in the Soft Power Superpowers, a congressional committee, set up to promote the president’s goals, was led by George Creel, who extended his control to the US War Trade Board, which oversaw film exports. Creel banned movies perceived a negatively portraying the US and its values.
Movies such as Kaiser: The Beast of Berlin—an anti-German movie—were deployed to French audiences during the war to win their minds. At war’s end, Hollywood movies promoted capitalism as a counter-information instrument for combatting communism. These events signify the cultural influence that movies, and Hollywood, cultivated long before soft power (the term) was conceptualised.
Maintaining US hegemony on soft power
Trump’s argument against overseas movie production—though delivered in a pedestrian manner—demonstrates the value of the American filmmaking industry to its soft power and reveals an anxiety that foreign countries might gain by promoting their images and values using an American information machine. Decoding Trump’s announcement is key to negotiating with the administration. If the underlying interest is maintaining Hollywood’s role as a transmitter of brand America, then tariffs are the wrong route to achieving that. But filmmakers and foreign policymakers must recognise that competition for cultural influence—illustrated by countries offering tax incentives for film production—could have been a factor in Trump’s decision and thinking.
Tax incentives attract film producers to different world locations. The local actors, language, and location present and promote the image of a place or a country, thereby broadcasting a country’s culture—its people and places—to global audiences.
The competition to win hearts and minds may also be an underlying thought in Trump’s administration. A White House spokesperson said that the administration was still exploring options on foreign film tariffs, with the intention of “safeguarding our country’s national and economic security,” an echo of the Wilson-era approach to film as an instrument of foreign policy.
Pop culture as a soft power has also benefited Japan and Korea, whosse cultural exports have created a positive transnational sentiment favouring the two countries. Japan has capitalised on animation—manga—and the popularity of anime among Gen Z is evidence of the silent force of soft power. The global admiration—this author included—of the South Korean boy band, BTS, could translate to a positive view of the country.
The clout for soft power is also pitting the US against China. The 2025 Global Soft Power Index by Brand Finance saw the US leading globally, followed by China. President Xi Jinping has promoted “cultural confidence” and “cultural security,” analysed as the Chinese understanding of soft power. China has also borrowed from Hollywood film techniques, best demonstrated by Kung Fu movies, which are available in the Western market and incorporate Chinese cultural traditions.
While Trump’s message was not explicit, it could be construed as a repudiation of foreign access to the Hollywood market, once an exclusive resource of America’s soft power. Nye argued in his seminal work that America led in hard and soft power resources. He saw Trump’s actions as antithetical to soft power. But he believed in American exceptionalism until his end. May he rest well.
That undiluted exceptionalism may be under threat due to the globalisation of the film industry, and the anxiety caused by its ongoing dilution fits well within Trump’s America First rhetoric.
Integrative negotiation
Distributive negotiation has no place in today’s interdependent world. Countries and their film industries must negotiate by identifying Trump’s interests and recognising theirs. Aligning interests gives way to a win-win outcome. Controlling the US’s cultural brands (a la Hollywood) is a possible Trump interest in hypothetical movie tariffs negotiations.
Benjamin Opiyo holds a Master of Communication degree from the University of South Australia (UniSA). He is a former president of the African Society Club at UniSA. He sat on the Council of UniSA and is a member of the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Institute of International Affairs. Benjamin is a global citizen passionate about Africa’s engagement in the international system.
This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.
