CHINA Edition
Hungarian Edition
The campaign for a nationwide US film and television production incentive has gained its most prominent political endorsement yet, with President Donald Trump calling on Congress to develop federal legislation aimed at keeping more entertainment work in the United States.
In an August 31 statement, Trump urged Republicans and Democrats to work together on a federal production incentive capable of supporting American film and television jobs. The Motion Picture Association welcomed the intervention, describing a national incentive as a potential “landmark step” for production across all 50 states.
The announcement marks a significant change in the political status of an idea that has been circulating within the industry for months. It does not, however, create a new tax credit by itself. No final bill, funding level or detailed eligibility framework has yet been announced, and any incentive would still require congressional approval.
That distinction is important. The federal support publicly endorsed by Trump is currently a policy direction rather than an operational programme.
From tariffs to a production incentive
The latest proposal represents a more conventional industry-policy approach than Trump’s earlier suggestion of imposing tariffs on films produced outside the United States.
While the practical and legal implications of a film tariff were uncertain, production incentives are already a familiar part of the financing landscape. California, Georgia, New York, New Jersey and numerous other states use their own programmes to attract projects, encourage local spending and support crew employment.
The current federal campaign has been promoted by actor Jon Voight, whom Trump appointed as one of his special ambassadors to Hollywood alongside Sylvester Stallone and Mel Gibson. Voight has been working with a coalition that includes the MPA, the Directors Guild of America and unions representing actors, writers and other entertainment workers.
One model developed by SP Media Group executives Steven Paul and Scott Karol would offer a 20% federal tax credit on eligible US production labour. An additional five percentage points could be available to independent films or projects shooting in designated disaster and enterprise zones. Crucially, the proposed federal credit could be combined with state-level incentives.
Those figures have attracted attention, but they should not yet be treated as the terms of a White House or congressional programme. They belong to an industry proposal that may influence future legislation; the eventual structure could be substantially different.
Why a federal layer could matter
The United States already has some of the world’s largest production centres, deepest talent pools and most developed studio infrastructure. Its incentive landscape, however, is primarily organised at state level. The resulting patchwork can produce significant differences in eligibility, annual capacity and financial value depending on where a project is based.
California has responded to the production slowdown by more than doubling the annual allocation of its Film and Television Tax Credit Program from $330 million to $750 million. The current five-year programme runs until June 2030 and covers feature films, television projects, independent productions and series relocating to the state.
California officials say the first year of the expanded programme has awarded credits to 170 projects expected to generate $6.6 billion in economic activity. Those projections underline the scale of the state response, while also demonstrating why the debate has moved beyond California: a federal credit would attempt to create a common baseline for production employment across the country rather than concentrating the policy response in a handful of states.
The campaign also comes during a wider contraction in film and television production. According to ProdPro figures reported by Reuters, US filming declined by 10% year on year during the first quarter of 2026. The United States still accounted for approximately 38% of worldwide film and television work, but the United Kingdom and Canada together represented almost one-third of global production.
A federal credit would not reverse that shift automatically. Studios are producing fewer projects than during the peak of the streaming expansion, while production decisions increasingly involve a combination of budget, infrastructure, crew availability, exchange rates, scheduling and long-term policy certainty.
It could, however, change the calculation for projects already considering several American states against international alternatives.
National and regional incentives already work together elsewhere
A federal incentive would bring the United States closer to the layered structures already used in several competing production territories.
Canada offers a federal production-services credit worth 16% of qualified Canadian labour expenditure, which can operate alongside provincial programmes. The United Kingdom provides nationwide expenditure credits for qualifying films and television productions, supplemented by an established studio sector and experienced crews.
Hungary uses a different structure: productions made in the country can qualify for a 30% cash rebate based on eligible expenditure, with certain non-Hungarian costs potentially raising the effective support relative to local spending to 37.5%. The scheme has been approved through the end of 2030 and operates alongside Budapest’s studio infrastructure, production-service sector and internationally experienced workforce.
The percentages are not directly interchangeable. Some incentives are based primarily on labour, others on a wider range of production expenditure. Cultural tests, spending caps, minimum budgets, refundability and payment schedules can substantially alter their real financial value.
As Budapest Reporter has previously examined, the headline rebate rate is also only one part of a territory’s offer. Reliable administration, available stages, skilled crews and the ability to support repeat productions can be equally important to studio finance teams.
A US federal programme would therefore add a new element to the international competition for productions, but it would not reduce that competition to a comparison between individual tax-credit percentages.
The decisive details have yet to be written
Several of the most consequential questions remain unanswered.
Congress would have to determine which productions qualify, how eligible labour is defined, whether the credit is refundable or transferable and whether the programme would operate under an annual cap. Lawmakers would also need to decide how independent films, streaming productions, international co-productions and projects already receiving state support should be treated.
Its administrative design may prove as important as its nominal rate. Producers and financiers need to know when support will be available, how quickly it can be monetised and whether a programme will remain stable throughout development, production and post-production.
The MPA’s endorsement gives the initiative meaningful industry support, and Trump’s call for cooperation places it on the federal political agenda. Neither guarantees that Congress will agree on its cost or final structure.
For now, the development is significant less because of a specific percentage than because Washington is beginning to treat production incentives as a national policy question. If that discussion produces a predictable and financeable programme, it could reshape how American locations compete for film and television work—both with one another and within the wider global production market.
