Actor and television host Whoopi Goldberg voiced sharp criticism Tuesday over former President Donald Trump’s call for a 100% tariff on movies produced outside the United States, calling the proposal a misguided threat to creative freedom and a misreading of the film industry’s economic realities.
Speaking on ABC’s The View, Goldberg pushed back against Trump’s announcement made on his Truth Social platform, where he stated that he had directed the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to begin implementing the tariff. According to Trump, the measure would apply to “any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.”
Goldberg described the idea as restrictive to storytelling, especially for films that depend on international settings and resources. “You can’t do that because what that equates to is you’re going to tell me how to write the story I want to write if it happens in Europe,” she said during the live broadcast. “You’re telling me that if my book comes out and I want to write it, you’re telling me how to write it. You’re telling me you’re going to charge me for that.”
She went on to highlight how many iconic and financially successful films would not have been possible under such restrictions. Referencing historical dramas and international productions, Goldberg emphasized that physical setting is essential to certain narratives. “The Passion of the Christ, you couldn’t have shot that in Texas. You can’t shoot Gladiator without going to Rome,” she said. “It is part of what we do, please stop.”
Goldberg also raised practical concerns about the cost of domestic production, pointing out that many projects film in Canada and other countries because of financial incentives or access to specific locations. “The problem has always been, it’s been very expensive to shoot in California. That’s why we shoot in Canada. It has nothing to do with why [films go abroad creatively],” she said.
She called on policymakers to address the underlying economic factors driving foreign production rather than penalizing international collaboration. “If you want a change, you got to change it in the States,” she said. “You have to make it available to people to shoot here in the States. Don’t stop us from going over and shooting overseas, because then you’re limiting us.”
Goldberg also underscored the cultural function of American films abroad. “The movies teach people English,” she said. “We teach people all, who will never get to America, what America is all about. We show them who we are.”
The discussion gained momentum during The View segment, with co-host Sunny Hostin pointing out the financial stakes tied to global markets. “The 10 highest-grossing movies in the world last year were all released by U.S. studios,” Hostin said. “We export that to other countries, giving us in the United States more income.”
Hostin cited the current commercial performance of Sinners, a U.S. film reportedly leading the domestic box office and making substantial gains in international markets. “It is being seen in 72 overseas markets — that helps the United States, so I don’t think [Trump] understands simple math,” she said.
Alyssa Farah Griffin, another panelist and a former communications director for the Trump White House, echoed Goldberg’s concerns with a more humorous tone. She said that location-based storytelling would suffer under the proposed tariff. “Like Emily in Paris, is it going to be Emily in Paris, Texas? Or like White Lotus: Mar-a-Lago edition?” she asked rhetorically.
Goldberg questioned the mechanics of such a tariff, pressing for clarity on who would be financially responsible. “When you go over to another country to work, you work with the people who are there. We don’t import our folks to go over there, so who are you going to put this tariff on? Is it on the production? Is it on the studio? What are you talking about?” she said.
The proposal was reportedly influenced by actor Jon Voight and producer Steven Paul, who submitted a plan to Trump with the intention of revitalizing domestic film production. According to a public statement, Voight and Paul held discussions with a wide range of industry stakeholders — including unions, studios, guilds, and streaming platforms — about how to encourage more filming within the United States.
Paul, who has produced titles with both international and domestic production footprints, is said to have helped shape the outline of a policy designed to reduce U.S. industry reliance on foreign locations. Voight, a longtime Trump supporter, has acted as an informal liaison between the former president and certain segments of the entertainment sector.
While the full details of their plan have not been publicly released, Trump’s announcement suggests that the proposal’s centerpiece is the blanket tariff. It remains unclear how such a measure would be administered, how it would affect distribution, and whether it would apply to co-productions or films financed by U.S. companies but shot abroad.
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel addressed the proposal during Monday’s episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, calling it absurd. “I don’t care where they’re made. I really don’t,” he said. “Sonic, the illegal immigrant hedgehog, is a national security threat and he must be stopped!”
Jimmy Fallon also referenced the issue on The Tonight Show, joining a growing list of media personalities questioning the rationale behind the proposal.
Amid the backlash from entertainers and television hosts, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a social media response that struck a more measured tone. Newsom, a Democrat and frequent Trump critic, indicated openness to efforts that could result in increased domestic film production.
“California built the film industry — and we’re ready to bring even more jobs home,” Newsom wrote late Monday. “We’ve proven what strong state incentives can do. Now it’s time for a real federal partnership to Make America Film Again. [POTUS], let’s get it done.”
While Newsom’s message appeared aimed at securing additional support for state-backed film incentives, he did not directly address the implications of taxing foreign-made films or how such tariffs might impact California-based companies that operate internationally.
The film industry continues to rely on a mix of domestic and international locations, often driven by creative needs and financial efficiencies. For major studios and independent filmmakers alike, access to global talent, diverse settings, and cross-border collaborations remains a practical reality of modern production.
Goldberg, who has won major awards across film, television, music, and theater, used her platform on The View to argue that restricting access to international resources risks narrowing the scope of American storytelling. “If you impose a tax like this, you are saying that we’re not good enough, and that is not the case,” she said.
