The Motion Picture Association is pushing Congress to create a federal film and television tax credit it claims could generate nearly $250 billion for the U.S. economy, but the rosy projections come from a study the lobby group itself commissioned.
MPA Chairman and CEO Charlie Rivkin, SAG-AFTRA President Sean Astin, and a bipartisan pair of House members held a virtual press conference Tuesday to unveil the findings and press lawmakers to act. The economic study, produced by consulting firm Olsberg SPI at the MPA's request, models a base 20 percent tax credit on U.S.-based labor expenses for any production spending at least $1 million domestically. Its headline number, $249-plus billion in total gross value between 2027 and 2035, bundles direct, indirect, and induced spending into a single eye-catching figure designed to move votes on Capitol Hill.
Left unaddressed in the public presentation: how much the credit would actually cost the federal treasury in foregone revenue, and whether Congress should be subsidizing one of the wealthiest industries in the country while cutting spending elsewhere.
The Olsberg SPI report projects $125.3 billion in added U.S.-based production spending over the nine-year window and roughly 143,500 full-time-equivalent jobs per year. It estimates $133.1 billion in additional worker income. Those projections assume the credit's base rate holds at 20 percent with "uplifts" under unspecified circumstances, details the MPA has not yet made public.
Without the federal incentive, the study warns, America's share of global production expenditure could slide from 34 percent for film and 42 percent for television to 25 and 29 percent, respectively. With it, the U.S. share could climb to 65 percent for film by 2030 and television by 2032. By 2035, the gap between the two scenarios is stark on paper: $38.7 billion in annual U.S. production spending with the credit versus $16.6 billion without it.
Every one of those figures was generated by a firm hired and paid by the trade group lobbying for the credit. That does not make the numbers false, but it means Congress should treat them the way it treats any advocacy document, with healthy skepticism and independent verification.
Rep. Laura Friedman, a California Democrat, framed the proposal as a jobs issue rather than a Hollywood bailout. The Hollywood Reporter reported her remarks at the press conference:
"Sixty-five countries have decided it's worth competing for film and television production. The United States hasn't, and too many Americans have lost their jobs because of it."
Friedman, who is partnering with Rep. Nathaniel Moran, a Texas Republican, on the legislation, cast the credit in blue-collar terms:
"Every production that goes overseas takes electricians, carpenters, drivers, and small business revenue with it. A national film tax credit will create more than 140,000 American jobs in all fifty states and nearly $250 billion in economic activity. That's a commonsense, bipartisan fix, and I'll keep working to get it done."
When pressed on how much funding the program would require, Friedman offered no cap. "Honestly, we're not talking about a capped program, necessarily, at this point, and we're still going through what the details are," she said. "But we need enough to get this done." An uncapped federal tax credit for a single industry is a large ask in any fiscal environment. In the middle of a deficit debate, it is an enormous one.
President Trump posted on Truth Social in August calling on both parties to move fast:
"I am going to suggest that Republicans and Democrats get together, and immediately craft Legislation to save the Movie, Television, and Entertainment Business in America.... Let's get this done!"
That post was described by industry advocates as a breakthrough, and it gave the MPA's lobbying effort bipartisan cover. Jon Voight, whom the president named as his "special ambassador" to Hollywood, joined Tuesday's press conference. Voight and the MPA have been working toward a federal credit for more than a year.
Not everyone on the right is sold. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board published a piece in early September blasting the concept as "handouts for Hollywood." The Journal's objection reflects a real tension within the conservative coalition: the same lawmakers who campaign on free markets and fiscal discipline are being asked to carve out a targeted subsidy for studios and production companies that already operate in one of the most profitable sectors of the global economy.
SAG-AFTRA President Sean Astin struck a more urgent tone, telling the press conference that union members are struggling to earn enough to qualify for the guild's health plan and that some are leaving the business entirely.
"We have to do this. We are going to lose the primacy of entertainment production if we don't do this."
Rivkin, the MPA chief, pitched the credit as a unifying cause across party lines:
"What this study shows us is precisely what's bringing President Trump, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, studios, unions, guilds and all of us together."
He added that "a federal incentive will leave a lasting imprint on the landscape of American creativity and America's economy." That may be true, but the same could be said of any subsidy large enough to reshape market incentives. The question is whether taxpayers should be the ones funding it.
The Olsberg SPI report leaves several critical gaps. It does not publicly disclose the cost to the federal government, the revenue the Treasury would never collect. A tax credit is not free money; it is money redirected from the general fund to a specific beneficiary. Lawmakers voting on the proposal deserve a Congressional Budget Office score, not just an industry-funded projection of benefits.
The specific "uplifts" above the 20 percent base rate remain undefined. So does the question of whether the credit would be refundable, meaning studios could receive cash payments even if they owe no federal taxes. No bill text has been released. Friedman and Moran have announced a partnership but not a legislative vehicle or bill number.
And the $250 billion headline figure itself deserves scrutiny. It combines direct production spending with indirect and induced economic activity, a multiplier approach that inflates the apparent impact. Direct spending alone is projected at $125.3 billion over nine years, roughly half the marquee number. Multiplier estimates are standard in economic modeling, but they are also the easiest tool for making a subsidy look like a bargain.
Keeping film and television production on American soil is a legitimate goal. The jobs are real, grips, electricians, truck drivers, caterers, set builders, and the competition from foreign incentive programs is real. But the right way to win that competition is not necessarily to hand a quarter-trillion-dollar talking point to an industry that spent decades lecturing Middle America from award-show stages. If Congress is going to write this check, voters deserve to know exactly how big it is, who benefits most, and what else that money could do.