OPINION: Trump vs. the movies

On Monday morning the Varsity Cinema, a Des Moines theater focused on screening arthouse and foreign films, sent a newsletter with the depressing subject line, “We Need Your Help: Our Federal Funding Was Canceled.”

The Varsity and several other theaters and arts organizations across the U.S. were informed their funding through the National Endowment of the Arts was terminated. Worse, the reasoning for many of these organizations was that their organization’s mission did not reflect “the priorities of the president.”

President Donald Trump’s priorities, it seems, is to tear down alternative films from independent and foreign outlets in an attempt to promote the industry in Hollywood. On Sunday, he proclaimed a 100% tariff "on any and all movies coming into our country that are produced in foreign lands."

Setting aside the impossibility of this happening (the Associated Press humorously said, “it’s unclear how any such tariff on international productions could be implemented“), Hollywood would still be paying a pretty hefty price.

Most Hollywood films today are filmed globally, with popular locations like England and New Zealand. Top-grossing movies from last year like “Wicked” and “Deadpool and Wolverine” were partially filmed in England; “Dune: Part Two” filmed scenes in Italy; animation for “Moana 2″ was completed entirely in Vancouver and digital effects for “Twisters,” “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3″ and “Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire” are created around the world in places like Mumbai, Munich and Paris.

It wouldn’t just be an industry beatdown in Hollywood if tariffs for foreign film production were applied - it would be a complete meltdown.

Why is this happening? Trump, in a Truth Social post from hell, described foreign films as a “national security threat" and “propaganda.” While it’s a little funny to say Sonic the Hedgehog is an existential threat, it’s an absurdity which we have to take seriously. Trump’s messaging is fear-mongering which uses outlandish language to turn anything not made into the U.S. as a combatant.

How would a tariff for this even be introduced? Would a distribution company pay the cost for acquiring U.S. rights to a foreign film? Will this apply to theaters or streaming services like Netflix, who is one of the biggest players in purchasing foreign movies?

This follows a year where two foreign films were nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. “I’m Still Here,” which portrays the lasting impact of dictatorship in Brazil, and “Emilia Pérez," which portrays a gang leader before and after her transition, both deal with cultures different from our own.

Trump’s siege on foreign films seems to have started in 2020 after Korean film “Parasite” won Best Picture. At the time, he likened the win like a trade issue, rather than a culture issue, saying "We’ve got enough problems with South Korea with trade. On top of that, [the Academy gives] them best movie of the year. Was it good? I don’t know."

But now, as Trump pulls funding from the arts (in 2022 the National Endowment for the Arts only made up 0.003% of the national budget, or three tenths of a penny per $100), it’s clear now this isn’t about trade or boosting American industry - it’s a brawl against art.

Films are an inherently collaborative medium. One person has to be in front of the camera, another behind. Locking foreign perspectives behind tariffs isn’t an attempt to get more money into the U.S.; it’s to silence them.

This destruction of foreign views extends to the destruction of civic spaces which have been funded by National Endowment grants. In April the Varsity hosted the 2025 Des Moines Latino Film Festival, sponsored by the Latino Center of Iowa, featuring documentaries and narrative films from Latino artists.

These screenings were shown over four days on weekdays, the theater carving out one of their time slots for the sole purpose of representing a culture in their space which wouldn’t get the chance otherwise.

It’s not the glamour of Hollywood, not the family-friendly nature of Disney nor the clean morals of superhero movies. For the theater, it’s a choice which probably won’t make much money. Yet they still chose to hold the festival for the sake of culture.

That’s the purpose of the arts. Trump, when commenting on “Parasite” claimed decades-old movies like “Gone With the Wind” and “Sunset Boulevard” represented some ideal time for movies. If we were to return to the comforting bubble of the past, then there’s no point of challenge and therefore no point of art.

Foreign perspectives, either through diversity or from cultures different from what we live in every day, are the future, and they’re the now. Art is developed and preserved, not perfected.

If the past was perfect, as Trump claims and wants his supporters to believe, then something went wrong. These tariffs and funding pulls show Trump believes DEI and foreign films are the problem. It’s an exclusionary approach which doesn’t put America first; it makes America only.

This isn’t a discussion of quality. I’ve seen as many arthouse and foreign movies be poor as I’ve seen blockbusters. Whether or not a movie is better because of where it’s made doesn’t matter. Trump clearly doesn’t care if a movie is good or not based on his thoughts on “Parasite.”

Paranoia is not a friend of mine. If I watch a bad movie, the worst it will do to me is give me a tummy-ache from the popcorn I wolfed down in boredom. What does hurt me is being unable to access the excitement I feel from watching a movie like “Parasite” or “Anatomy of a Fall” or “The Boy and the Heron” or “The Intouchables.”

One movie I watched in college, a Chinese film called “Raise the Red Lantern,” is not available anywhere. Not on streaming services, not in digital markets, only on ancient and wildly expensive secondhand DVDs from eBay and Amazon. It’s a movie I’ve been dying to see again but have been unable to. It’s a rare situation, but it’s part of the real challenges access can be for even historic movies. The last thing I want is more challenges.