Tariffs on Films, Drugs, and Trade Authority
- Schulz Trade Law
- Oct 1
- 3 min read
Updated: Oct 3
Tariffs on Films, Drugs, and Trade Authority
Michelle Schulz on SiriusXM POTUS Politics
Trade attorney Michelle Schulz unpacks the legal battles over presidential tariff authority, the unusual push to tax foreign-made movies, and the real-world challenges businesses face under shifting trade rules.
September 29, 2025
POTUS Politics
SiriusXM Radio
The Briefing with Steve Scully
Host: Steve Scully
Tariffs on Films: A Legal and Practical Puzzle
Michelle Schulz addressed one of the more unusual tariff proposals—placing a 100% duty on foreign-made films. She explained that applying tariffs to movies is far more complex than with traditional goods.
“Typically, when we’re looking at tariffs, we have to determine what percent is originating in the tariffs country… but here we’re talking about services, not goods.”
She noted that customs would need to develop rules of origin for films and determine how to value them, possibly requiring later reconciliations once fair market value can be calculated.
Schulz emphasized that with today’s global film production—from Canada and Great Britain to India and Italy—the question of whether a movie counts as “foreign-made” is both technical and unresolved.
Presidential Authority and the Supreme Court Showdown
The conversation quickly turned to the broader legal context. At issue is whether the president has constitutional authority to impose tariffs without Congress.
Schulz reminded listeners that two lower courts have already ruled against the administration, finding that tariffs should be under congressional authority. “
"Congress should be involved in the assessment of tariffs according to the Constitution… but we’re kind of not seeing it, which is very confusing.”
The Supreme Court, set to hear arguments in November, will decide two central questions: whether trade deficits constitute an “emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and whether the president can use that authority to implement sweeping “reciprocal tariffs.”
As Schulz explained,
“That was not what the law was originally designed for back in the 70s.”
Business Realities: Who Pays the Price?
Beyond the legal wrangling, Schulz highlighted the burden on companies being asked to move production to the U.S. “You can’t turn on a dime and create a plant,” she cautioned.
Even firms willing to break ground face zoning laws, permits, and long timelines. In practice, she noted, the companies that benefit most are large players like Roche and Novartis, which already operate U.S. facilities and have committed billions in investments. Smaller and mid-sized businesses, however, are far more likely to face ongoing penalties until they can prove compliance.
“It’s certainly much more complicated than just saying we’re going to break ground and build a plant for X number of employees,”
Schulz concluded, underscoring the real-world gap between political announcements and business feasibility.
The debate over tariffs is not just a political fight—it’s a compliance challenge for businesses across industries, from pharmaceuticals to entertainment.
If your company needs clarity on how shifting U.S. trade laws affect your operations, contact Schulz Trade Law today for guidance on risk, enforcement, and strategy in an unpredictable trade environment.
Trade on, but trade informed!
Subscribe to Schulz Trade Law for more updates.
About Us
We are a dedicated team of trade law professionals, committed to helping businesses navigate the complexities of international regulations and tariffs. With deep industry knowledge and a client-first approach, we provide clear, actionable insights to protect your interests and drive success in a dynamic global market.
Contact Us
Stay ahead of trade law changes!
Contact us today for guidance on tariffs and regulations to safeguard your business.
Comments