It’s exhausting trying to keep up with the nonsensical utterances of a commander in chief whose every impulsive tweetable thought is apparently capable of becoming law through executive action. 

However, every once in a while, the absurdities making their way from Truth Social to official federal policy offer a few lessons about the broader issues plaguing modern politics — issues that are just as alive and well in local circles as they are in White House cabinet meetings. 

On Sunday, as part of his new protectionist plan for the American economy, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that his administration would work to make Hollywood great again by imposing tariffs on foreign films — films he ostensibly believes represent a threat to national security. 

What exactly this film tariff policy will look like is still a bit out of focus. For example, will American studios that film on-location in foreign lands be subjected to tariffs, or will such levies only be applied to films emanating from studios located outside the United States? What about films produced by foreign studios that are, nonetheless, filmed here? 

Regardless of how such tariffs will be imposed, Trump argues they are necessary as Hollywood is being “decimated” by foreign competitors. Of course, the word “decimated” is doing a bit of heavy lifting in that statement. 

While it’s true that Hollywood is releasing fewer films, much of that decline can be attributed to the disruptive effect of COVID-19, not foreign competitors replacing American studios on the free market. During the height of the pandemic in 2020, for example, North American film production plummeted to a mere 332 releases from a high of 872 just two years prior. Since then, however, the industry has been steadily recovering, releasing an impressive 569 films last year. 

That’s not to say there aren’t real challenges facing the American movie industry at the moment — but foreign competition certainly isn’t the primary threat to domestic moviemakers. Theater attendance has long been struggling as consumer preferences evolve, streaming services are now producing their own content rather than relying solely on legacy studios and artificial intelligence seems quite likely to upend the industry even further in the years to come. 

Those market realities are far more of a threat to traditional Hollywood studios than foreign producers creating watchable films. 

Beyond all the nonsense of Trump’s attempt to make movies American again, there’s a deeper philosophical question his actions should raise for those of us concerned with responsible public policy: Is it really the government's role to distort the market for the advantage of a specific industry? 

Unfortunately, far too many legislators believe it is.

In Nevada, lawmakers are still contemplating a pair of proposals to approve dramatic increases to the state’s film tax credit program. Advocates argue the bills would encourage studios to set up operations in Nevada — thereby providing the state with much-needed economic diversification and potential growth. 

However, as I have written before, there are plenty of reasons to question the likelihood of an economic bonanza as a result of such taxpayer-funded giveaways. Experience from other states suggest the economic results are at best mixed. And while multinational corporations would undoubtedly enjoy padding their profits with millions of dollars worth of transferable tax credits each year, most rigorous studies on the practice discredit the idea that such public handouts “trickle down” to the broader economy. 

The largest objection by far, however, is that such tax credit structures are little more than unfettered cronyism. 

And while that might not sound identical to the sort of protectionist nonsense being peddled by the White House, the two are certainly closely related. Both approaches are attempts to centrally plan and micromanage the economy for the ostensible benefit of a niche collection of well-connected business interests. 

While Trump’s proposal might be inherently more counterproductive and outlandish than the more commonplace practice of lavishing Hollywood studios with public money, both are attempts to distort the market and remake our economy in the image of those pushing the policies. It’s a governing approach that is borne from a narcissistic belief among too many policymakers that the economy shouldn’t be shaped by consumer preferences, but rather be designed by our elected officials— whether that be through the use of protectionist import taxes or wheelbarrows full of cash from state treasuries. 

And that’s the underlying issue not just with Trump’s form of mercantilism, but also with state lawmakers tendentiously catering to politically powerful special interests — special interests such as Hollywood studios that want taxpayers to subsidize their billion-dollar profit margins. 

So, while it might be tempting to chalk the insanity of current tariff policies up to Trump being Trump, the truth is a bit more terrifying. As it turns out, his brand of economic micromanagement isn’t nearly as rare as we would like to think — it’s merely a bit more erratic and unpredictable than the more common variety being pushed by lawmakers everywhere else, including here in Nevada. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichael or on Substack @creativediscourse.