Whether that trade-off would be beneficial is an economic question, not something that can be established simply by asserting that tariffs will protect jobs.
The Production of The Chronology of Water
Kristen Stewart's own experience illustrates why the issue is complicated.
Her first feature as a director, The Chronology of Water, was shot in Latvia.
The film was adapted from Lidia Yuknavitch's memoir and stars Imogen Poots, Thora Birch and Earl Cave.
Stewart took the project to Cannes in 2025, where it screened in the Un Certain Regard section.
At Cannes, she spoke candidly about the broader political environment affecting filmmakers.
When asked about Trump's proposed film tariffs, Stewart described the situation as frightening and said people in the industry were discussing the issue constantly.
Her comments were not simply an economic complaint from an established Hollywood actor.
She was speaking as a filmmaker who had just completed her directorial debut.
The project itself had required international production.
And by early 2026, Stewart told The Sunday Times that she felt she could not work freely in the United States and said she probably would not remain in America indefinitely while Trump was president.
That does not mean the proposed tariff alone forced her to leave.
It means she sees the political and industry environment as part of a broader problem.
That distinction is essential.
"I Can't Work Freely"
Stewart's phrase about not being able to work freely became one of the most widely discussed elements of her comments.
For an artist, freedom can mean several things.
It can mean freedom to choose a story.
Freedom to work with international collaborators.
Freedom to criticize political leaders.
Freedom to make unconventional films.
Freedom to obtain financing from producers in different countries.
Freedom to shoot wherever the production requires.
Stewart has not presented her concerns solely as an issue of production costs.
She has also expressed concern about the broader political climate.
At Cannes in 2025, she said Trump's influence on the film industry was "terrifying" and urged people to expect the worst while fighting for the best.
Her position therefore belongs to a broader debate about artistic independence.
Critics of Stewart's comments can argue that she is an extremely successful Hollywood actor with financial resources and international opportunities that ordinary production workers do not possess.
That is a legitimate point of discussion.
But it does not answer the underlying policy question.
A celebrity's ability to move abroad is different from the ability of a lighting technician, set builder or production assistant to do so.
At the same time, Stewart's experience can provide a window into how international production actually works.
Her film was not constrained by national borders.
The creative project moved to the location where its producers believed it could be made.
That is normal in modern filmmaking.
The Jobs Question
Perhaps the most important question is not whether Kristen Stewart can afford to leave America.
It is what happens to ordinary workers if production moves.
This is where the political debate becomes more complicated.
Trump's supporters can reasonably argue that American film workers benefit when productions happen in American cities.
But critics can respond that tariffs do not automatically guarantee those jobs.
A studio might respond to higher costs by reducing the number of productions it makes.
It might lower budgets.
It might move certain aspects of production elsewhere.
It might rely more heavily on digital production.
Or it might negotiate new forms of international financing.
There is no guarantee that every dollar currently spent overseas would simply move back to American workers.
And there is another consideration.
The United States itself already uses tax incentives to attract film productions.
States such as Georgia, New Mexico and California have developed substantial production industries partly because of state-level incentives.
That means the United States is already participating in the same international competition that Trump criticizes.
The question becomes whether federal tariffs are the right additional tool.
Hollywood's Domestic Production Problem Is Real
It would also be inaccurate to portray Trump's proposal as a response to a completely imaginary problem.
American film and television production has faced significant changes.
The rise of streaming transformed the industry's economics.
The pandemic disrupted production.
The 2023 writers' and actors' strikes halted much of Hollywood for months.
Studios have subsequently focused more intensely on profitability and reducing costs.
The Financial Times reported that U.S. film and television production spending fell substantially between 2021 and 2024.
So there is a genuine concern about the amount of production taking place domestically.
The disagreement is over what caused the decline and what should be done about it.
Trump's solution emphasizes trade barriers.
Other industry participants favor tax incentives, infrastructure investment, workforce development and other measures designed to make American production more competitive.
These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
But they produce different economic incentives.
Other Hollywood Voices Have Been More Optimistic
Not everyone in the film industry has responded to Trump's proposal with the same level of alarm as Stewart.
Director Richard Linklater, speaking at Cannes in May 2025, expressed skepticism that the proposed tariffs would actually happen and said he remained optimistic about the future of American filmmaking.
That contrast illustrates how uncertain the situation has been.
Some filmmakers see the proposal as an existential threat.
Others believe the idea may be modified, abandoned or implemented in a form far less disruptive than the original announcement suggested.
The industry's uncertainty is therefore partly a consequence of the policy's lack of detail.
Until the government specifies precisely how the tariff would work, producers cannot reliably calculate its effect.
The Problem With a Blanket 100% Tariff
The word "100%" sounds simple.
Economically, however, it could be extraordinarily complicated.
Imagine an American studio produces a movie for $100 million.
Perhaps $50 million is spent in the United States and $50 million overseas.
Is the entire film considered foreign?
Is only the foreign portion subject to a tariff?
What if the studio itself is American?
What if half the financing comes from a British company?
What if the movie is released first at a film festival in France?
What if the movie is made for a streaming service and never physically crosses a border?
These questions are central to implementation.
Reuters reported that the legal authority and practical mechanics of the proposed tariff were unclear even after Trump revived the idea in September 2025.
That uncertainty is particularly significant because film is increasingly distributed digitally.
A tariff designed around the concept of a movie "entering" the United States was developed in a world of physical imports.
Streaming complicates that model.
A film can be produced in Britain, uploaded to a global platform and watched simultaneously in Los Angeles, London, Seoul and São Paulo.
There is no shipping container.
There is no conventional customs checkpoint.
The economics of digital entertainment do not fit neatly into traditional tariff structures.
Could Tariffs Actually Bring Hollywood Back?
The answer depends on what "bring Hollywood back" means.
If the goal is simply to increase the amount of physical production occurring in the United States, tariffs could potentially influence some decisions.
But if the goal is to rebuild a globally competitive American entertainment industry, the equation is much more complicated.
Studios need affordable production.
They need skilled crews.
They need sound stages.
They need visual-effects infrastructure.
They need financing.
They need predictable tax policy.