Your Future Film Coalition News Digest #5
This week, we cover: the latest updates in public funding, the fallout from President Trump’s film production tariffs declaration, and growing our branch leadership.
The Latest in Indie Film as of May 8
Public Funding Withers Under Federal Attacks: Last week, two landmark events further stripping the vitality of public funding of the independent media ecosystem occurred. First, instead of proposing a rescission bill to strip Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding, on May 1, the Trump White House issued an executive order instructing both CPB to “cease direct funding to NPR and PBS” and all federal agencies to terminate “direct and indirect funding” of NPR and PBS. CPB, which sued Trump and Office of Personnel Management staff on April 29 for illegally attempting to remove CPB board members, indicated a lack of compliance with this executive order in a response stating, in part: “CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority. Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.” Nonetheless, the Department of Education followed the executive order in immediately terminating the Ready to Learn federal grant program, which funded PBS Kids shows alongside other non-PBS educational programming. Individual states like Indiana are further cutting funding. According to New Jersey’s WBGO, the White House is still sending the rescission package to Congress—House leaders may bring the package to a vote as early as this week.
On Friday, May 2, the NEA sent blanket grant termination notices to hundreds of arts and cultural institutions with active grants, including dozens of film festivals and artist support nonprofits. Some organizations received notices withdrawing funding after May 31, while others had funding rescinded before their grant periods began. These grant terminations are a step toward eliminating the agency altogether, as proposed in Trump’s 2026 discretionary budget request, alongside the NEH and the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The effects on film festivals and arthouse cinemas are particularly acute, with reports rolling in from Missouri and Alabama, among many other states. Film Festival Alliance and FFC board member Barbara Twist is offering guidance for grantees here—see “What’s Happening” below for a form collecting grant termination data for advocacy purposes.
Tariff Confusion, Federal Incentives, and a Proposal for Fin-Syn: By Monday, May 5 a White House spokesperson began walking back Trump’s social media declaration of a “100% tariff on any and all movies coming into [the U.S.] that are produced in Foreign Lands.” Trade press interviews mostly agree with Producers United’s take: “While the problem is real, tariffs are not the solution. Imposing tariffs on ‘foreign’ production would have devastating consequences not only for international partners but also for U.S.-based companies, workers, and creators.”
What would actually help indie film production and distribution? In the midst of this news cycle, Governor Gavin Newsom called for a $7.5 billion federal tax credit, Senator Adam Schiff reiterated his support for a federal film incentive program, and, most prominently, “Hollywood Ambassador” Jon Voight and his business partner Steven Paul revealed plans they shared with Trump. Voight’s plan calls for content restrictions, an “American Cultural Test,” that could be used as an ideological cudgel to disqualify productions. Some state tax incentive programs already require productions to pass a vague ideological test in order to qualify for local tax credits, see more on the Texas program as an example at the bottom of this digest. Aside from a 10% federal tax incentive, Voight’s plan also notably includes a return of fin-syn rules for broadcast and expansion to streaming, which would support indie production in a substantial way (with major anticipated pushback from studios and streamers). For a short primer on fin-syn rules and why it should be a cornerstone of any plan to boost indie film, read on below.
What’s Happening at FFC
The Film Festival Alliance, a FFC member org, is spreading the following guidelines and resources:
We also encourage affected organizations and artists to fill out the following form to participate in NEA-wide tracking of grant terminations. This form is administered by FFC ally Annie Dorsen and a collective of advocates in peer arts fields.
This form is collecting information on congressional districts, grant status, loss amounts, and more.
What is fin-syn and why does it matter?
Early in the television industry, three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) exerted control over the production, distribution, and exhibition of broadcast programming. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determined this vertical integration of the business offered the networks an unfair advantage in the marketplace and crowded out independent competition.
In 1970, the FCC enacted the Financial Interest and Syndication Rules (Fin-Syn) and Prime Time Access Rules (PTAR) in order to increase competition, promote programmatic diversity, and limit control by the networks. Fin-Syn and PTAR required the networks to limit their ownership or financial interest in the shows they aired in primetime and syndicated slots. Consent decrees executed by the Justice Department in 1977 solidified the rules, and opened the way for the rise of independent production in television.
The fin-syn rules were controversial from the outset with networks arguing against the regulation. While some credited the rules for bringing about a golden age of television for independent production companies (e.g. Norman Lear’s Tandem Productions), others argued that the fin-syn rules benefited large production studios rather than smaller independent producers due to the financial risk required of suppliers to deliver productions to networks for a license fee while retaining ownership and syndication rights.
After cable brought more competition and networks into homes, the Clinton Administration deemed these restrictions obsolete. The fin-syn rules were abolished in 1993, and the PTAR rules were rescinded by the FCC in 1996.
These eliminations have contributed to the unfair business practices we’ve inherited today. Now streamers often require exclusive, worldwide rights and 100% ownership of productions. Under Voight’s plan, here’s how restoring fin-syn rules would work:
1) when making global deals, streamers pay the producer a guaranteed minimum premium equal to a percentage of the total cost of the production, and producers retain non-exclusive license after an exclusive period;
2) when acquiring less than global rights, streamers allow the producer the option to co-own and co-finance the production, and the producer retain rights for unlicensed territories;
3) streamers split copyright ownership 50/50 with the producer, and the producer controls derivative-work rights and ancillary rights.
These rules would apply to all productions that streamers exhibit in the U.S. and any motion picture that does not premiere in U.S. theaters with an initial minimum eight-week run. While there are practical regulatory jurisdiction questions about reinstating fin-syn, its ideas are necessary to bolster financial incentives for indies in film and series production.
More on the Top Stories
Public Funding Withers Under Federal Attacks
“Trump Administration Terminates Education Grant That Has Helped Fund PBS Kids Content — Update,” Ted Johnson, Deadline, May 6, 2025.
This Department of Education grant is separate from the CPB allocation to PBS and NPR, indicating how executive orders are being carried out among other federal agencies. Production and programming has immediately stopped on the PBS Kids content funded by this grant.
“National Endowment for the Arts Cuts Millions in Grants,” Isa Farfan, Hyperallergic, May 5, 2025.
Hyperallergic’s reporting connects the cuts in the film world to the effect on the arts and culture sector overall. Insiders and quoted individuals both indicated “this attempt to gut the [NEA] is different because it invokes ideological arguments.” “By eliminating or restricting funds from the NEA, the government is exercising a level of ideological control over what we as Americans can see and experience,” Barbara Twist (Film Festival Alliance executive director and Future Film Coalition board member) told Hyperallergic in a phone interview.
“Indiana legislature eliminates public media funding in biennial budget,” Austin Fuller, Current, April 25, 2025.
Indiana lawmakers approved eliminating all state funding for public media, cutting $3.675M per year from the state's 17 public media stations. Mark Newman, executive director of Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations, explained that the financial impact on local stations will vary. For small rural stations it could amount to 30%–40% of their budgets. As we shared in a previous news digest, the Current reported in March how rural and Midwestern states benefit from federal CPB funding. Defunding at the state-level as well would prove a significant blow to those communities.
Tariff Confusion, Federal Incentives, and a Proposal for Fin-Syn
“Trump’s 100 Percent Tariff on Movies: 8 Key Questions the Industry Is Now Pondering and Dreading,” Patrick Brzeski and Scott Roxborough, The Hollywood Reporter, May 5, 2025.
This report summarizes some of the biggest, unanswered questions regarding Trump’s proposed tariffs. Doubting the policy’s ability to effectively attract production back to the states, the authors plainly state, “for small and midsize independent productions, a tariff could simply mean those films don’t get made.”
“How many Hollywood movies are made outside America?" Stephen Follows, Decoding the World Through Data, May 5, 2025.
Following Trump’s tariff proposal, Stephen Follows analyzes the difficulty in assessing what movies qualify as being “produced in Foreign Lands.” With no comprehensive tracking system, multiple international co-productions, and a global supply chain, Follows writes, “Film production has become one of the most globalised industries on earth. Crews, financing, visual effects, post-production, and even actors routinely cross borders.”
ICYMI
“Westchester County Film and Television Industry Generates $924 Million Economic Impact in 2024,” Westchester County press release, April 30, 2025.
The Westchester County Office of Tourism and Film reports that the local film and television industry rebounded in 2024, creating 3,103 jobs and generating $261.6 million in total wages. The county is committed to long-term growth by investing in “workforce initiatives, expanding film infrastructure and deepening engagement with industry decision-makers.” Like most state and regional economic impact studies, the report does not differentiate the impact generated by independent productions, further highlighting the need for comparable data in the indie sector.
“L.A. Is Set To Become A Little Easier To Film In After City Council Passes Motion To Reduce Red Tape,” Peter White, Deadline, April 29, 2025.
As film production continues to decline in Los Angeles, the L.A. City Council passed a motion to simplify regulations and permitting, and eliminate “unnecessary fees and inconsistent safety requirements.” Highlighting the economic and workforce impact of the industry, Councilmember Adrin Nazarian, who introduced the motion, said, “This is about jobs that support L.A. families and all the small neighborhood businesses where they live and shop; the dry cleaners, the manicurists, the taquerias, the breakfast spots, the sandwich shops and the caterers. Los Angeles is hurting because film production is leaving.”
“Texas cities are preparing for a $500 million film industry boost,” Jamil David, Chron, April 30, 2025.
In order to be designated as a “Film Friendly Community” by the Texas Film Commission, local cities are beginning to offer or increase their own benefit packages to attract film productions to their communities. As we covered in previous news digests, the Texas legislature is moving forward with the state’s revised film incentive program despite its regressive tax structure for indie films and vague language requiring productions to uphold “family values.” This further demonstrates the need for independent film professionals to organize and advocate at local, state, and federal levels for policies that enhance the indie sector and promote fair competition.
