revenue

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is stepping up its ambitious effort to replace about $1.6 trillion in lost tariff revenue that was eliminated by the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a range of the president’s import taxes.

Recovering that lost revenue, which the White House was counting on to help offset the steep, multitrillion-dollar cost of its tax cuts, is possible but will be challenging, experts say. The administration has to use different legal provisions to impose new import taxes, and those provisions require longer, complex processes that U.S. companies can use to seek exemptions. It could be months or more before it is clear how much revenue the replacement tariffs will yield.

“I wouldn’t bet against this administration being able to get back on paper the same effective tariff rate they had before,” said Elena Patel, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. But the new approach will “make it easier for people to contest the tariffs, which is going to put a big asterisk on the revenue until all that is settled.”

On Wednesday, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration will investigate 16 economies — including the European Union — over whether their governments are subsidizing excessive factory capacity in a way that disadvantages U.S. manufacturing. The investigation will also cover China, South Korea and Japan, Greer said.

In addition, he said, there would be a second investigation of dozens of countries to see whether their failure to ban goods made by forced labor amounts to an unfair trade practice that harms the United States. That investigation will also cover the EU and China, as well as Mexico, Canada, Australia and Brazil.

Both investigations are being conducted under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which requires the administration to consult with the targeted countries, as well as hold public hearings and allow affected U.S. industries to comment. A hearing as part of the factory capacity investigation will be held May 5, while a hearing on the forced labor investigation will occur April 28.

It’s a far cry from the emergency law that President Trump relied on in his first year in office, which allowed him to immediately impose tariffs on any country, at nearly any level, simply by issuing an executive order.

Moments after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump imposed a 10% tariff on all imports under a separate legal authority, but that duty can only last for 150 days. The president has said he would raise it to 15%, the maximum allowed, but has yet to do so. Some two dozen states have already challenged the new taxes. The administration is aiming to complete its Section 301 investigations before the 10% duties expire.

The effort underscores the importance that the Trump White House has placed on tariffs as a revenue-raiser at a time when the federal government is facing huge annual budget deficits for decades into the future. Previous administrations, by contrast, used tariffs more sparingly to narrowly protect specific industries.

Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, noted that the first investigation covers roughly 70% of imports, while the second would cover nearly all of them.

“That breadth suggests the goal isn’t to address the issues at hand, but instead to re-create a sweeping tariff tool,” she said.

Trump portrays tariffs as a way to force foreign countries to essentially help pay the cost of U.S. government services, even though all recent economic studies find that American companies and consumers are paying the duties, including analyses by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and economists at Harvard University. In his State of the Union address last month, Trump even touted his tariffs as a potential replacement for the income tax, which would return the United States’ tax regime to the late 19th century.

Trump also wants tariffs to help pay for the tax cuts he extended in key legislation last year. The tax cut legislation is expected, according to the most recent estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, to add $4.7 trillion to the national debt over a decade, while all Trump’s import taxes, including ones not struck down by the court, were projected to offset about $3 trillion — or two-thirds of that cost.

The high court’s ruling Feb. 20 that he could no longer impose emergency tariffs eliminated about $1.6 trillion in expected revenue over the next decade, according to the CBO.

Some of Trump’s import taxes remain place, including previous tariffs on China and Canada that were imposed after earlier 301 investigations. The administration has also imposed tariffs on some specific products, including steel, lumber and cars. Those, combined with the 10% tariff for part of this year, should yield about $668 billion over the next decade, the Tax Foundation estimates.

“It’s going to take a really big patchwork of these other investigations to make up for the [lost] tariffs,” York said.

The administration’s efforts are also unusual because they reflect an overreliance on tariffs to bring in more government revenue. Trump has also said the import taxes are intended to return manufacturing to the United States — manufacturing jobs, however, are down since he returned to office — and he has used the tariffs to leverage trade deals.

“What makes this really different,” said Kent Smetters, executive director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, “it is really the first time tariffs have been mainly used as a revenue raiser.”

Patel, meanwhile, argues that raising revenue can be done more reliably and straightforwardly by Congress. Laws like Section 301 are traditionally intended to be used to address specific trade policy concerns in particular countries.

“It’s not supposed to be there to raise revenue,” she said. “If we want to raise revenue through tariffs, then Congress should impose a broad based tariff.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

It has been nearly three years since Hollywood writers went on a historic strike that lasted 148 days and ushered in an extraordinary period of labor unrest that virtually shut down the film and TV business.

Now, writers are poised to commence another round of bargaining with the major studios on a new three-year film and TV contract. Few observers think the union is girding for another showdown, especially at a time when many of its members are struggling to find work amid media consolidation and belt-tightening.

But in advance of negotiations that begin on Monday , union leaders are eager to dispel any perception that they might have scaled back their demands.

“Our members have shown many times that they’re willing to fight for what we need as a collective group,” WGA West President Michele Mulroney said in an interview. “And there’s no exception here.”

With its current contract expiring on May 1, the WGA hopes to improve its members’ healthcare plans, increase streaming residuals and expand AI protections.

Michele Mulroney speaks as the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) and Writers Guild of America (WGA) join GLAAD in releasing the 11TH Annual GLAAD Studio Responsibility Index at The Village at Ed Gould Plaza Los Angeles LGBT Center in Los Angeles, California, on September 14, 2023.

(Michael Tran/AFP via Getty Images)

Ellen Stutzman, the union’s executive director, said despite popular belief, the studios have weathered the transition from cable television to streaming “very well,” citing their efforts to maximize revenue with streaming bundling, rising subscription fees and advertising revenue.

“Writers are watching as Netflix and Paramount are fighting it out to acquire Warner Bros… Paramount is spending $81 billion,” said Stutzman. “There’s money for a fair deal for writers.”

The union leaders agree that this year’s negotiations are all focused on the sustainability of a writer’s career.

A spokesperson from the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major studios in negotiations, said in a statement that they look forward “to engaging in a constructive and collaborative bargaining process with the WGA. Through continued good-faith dialogue, we are confident we can reach balanced solutions that support talented writers while sustaining the long-term success and stability of our industry and its workforce.”

A top priority for the WGA is to increase the caps that companies contribute to the union’s healthcare plan. Union officials say the current cap has remain unchanged for two decades as healthcare contributions have steadily declined due to fewer writers working.

AI is also top of mind for the WGA.

In 2023, the guild secured various AI protections by establishing that AI isn’t a writer and nothing it produces is considered literary material.

But as major studios start to make deals with AI companies, like Disney’s $1 billion investment into OpenAI’s Sora platform, many writers are concerned about how their work could be used.

“AI is using [studios’] IP, which is stuff that we wrote to license these models,” said John August, the co-host of the “Scriptnotes” podcast and WGA’s negotiating committee co-chair. “With the Sora deal, it seems clear that the companies intend to monetize this IP for use with AI.”

August says the union will be skeptical toward arguments that it’s still too early to seek more safeguards around such a nascent industry, citing the union’s past history with the rise of DVDs and the internet and how profoundly those technologies changed the compensation for writers.

“If you’re taking the work that we created to generate AI outputs, we are owed money. They’re using our work to do something down the road,” added August.

WGA’s negotiating committee also is looking to boost streaming residuals, expand the minimum number of people allowed in a writers’ room and add protections for scribes working on pilots.

“We very much hope that lessons were learned in 2023 and that the AMPTP will come to the table ready to take our proposal seriously and to make a fair deal, and to do that quickly,” Mulroney said. “It provides stability for the companies and for our membership. It’s better for everybody.”

WGA is entering contract negotiations nearly a month after the actors’ union, SAG-AFTRA, began its bargaining sessions. Last week,
the AMPTP said it was extending negotiations another seven days.

Feb. 27 (Asia Today) — Revenue and admissions for South Korean films plunged about 40% in 2025 from a year earlier, according to industry data released Thursday, underscoring ongoing challenges for the domestic box office.

The Korean Film Council said in its annual industry report that total theater revenue reached 1.047 trillion won ($785 million) last year, while total admissions stood at 106.09 million, down 12.4% and 13.8% respectively from 2024.

The industry narrowly maintained the 1 trillion won and 100 million admissions thresholds, helped by a string of late-year hits including “Zombie Daughter,” “F1: The Movie,” “Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – Infinity Castle,” “Zootopia 2” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash.”

However, Korean films alone saw a much steeper decline.

Domestic titles generated 419.1 billion won ($314 million) in revenue and drew 43.58 million viewers, down 39.4% and 39.0% from a year earlier. Their market share fell to around 40%, and no Korean film surpassed 10 million admissions in 2025.

In contrast, foreign films posted revenue of 627.9 billion won ($471 million) and 62.51 million admissions, up 24.7% and 21.0% year-on-year.

Special format screenings such as IMAX and 4D recorded 110 billion won ($82 million) in revenue, up 46.3% from 75.9 billion won the previous year. The average number of cinema visits per person declined to 2.08 from 2.40.

The export value of completed Korean films rose 19.9% to $50.28 million, driven largely by demand in Asian markets including Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia and Vietnam.

The council said overall theater visits declined, but audiences showed a stronger tendency toward selective viewing of major titles, suggesting a more concentrated box office environment.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260227010008420

Paramount Skydance is betting its future on its streaming business, as gains at the media and entertainment company’s Paramount+ platform helped boost earnings for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2025.

On Wednesday, Paramount reported $8.1 billion in revenue for the three-month period that ended Dec. 31, up 2% compared to the previous year’s quarter. That was due to growth in its streaming business, which saw a 10% increase in quarterly revenue to $2.2 billion, as well as gains at Paramount’s filmed entertainment segment, which reported revenue of $1.3 billion,an increase of 16% compared to the previous year.

The company’s TV media business, however, had a tougher quarter.

That segment reported revenue of $4.7 billion, down 5% compared to last year, as traditional broadcast networks continue tolose subscribers. Paramount also cited a 10% decrease in advertising, partially due to a drop in political spending and not having the Big 10 championship as it did in 2024.

Paramount reported an operating loss of $339 million, which included $546 million in restructuring and transaction-related costsattributed to its merger with Skydance last year. Diluted losses per share totaled 52 cents, compared to a loss of 33 cents during the prior year.

Chief Executive David Ellison praised the company’s progress under his tenure, noting that investments in the film studio, original series, UFC and tech upgrades to Paramount+’s streaming platform and advertising would build momentum in the coming years.

“It’s been six months, but we really do feel good about the work the team has done to date,” he said during an earnings call with analysts Wednesday afternoon. “You can expect that to accelerate into the future quickly.”

The company said it expects total revenue of $30 billion for 2026, which would mark a 4% increase compared to 2025. Paramount signaled the primary driver of that growth will be its streaming business, though the company also anticipates a boost from its studio segment.

Company executives declined to answer questions on the call about Paramount’s bid to acquire rival Warner Bros. Discovery.

The only mention of the ongoing fight was in Paramount‘s letter to shareholders, which noted that the company was “confident” in its standalone strategy and growth trajectory, but that adding Warner would be an “accelerant to achieving these goals more quickly” and in a way that would be “economically compelling” for Paramount’s shareholders.

Paramount submitted a higher bid Monday offering $31 a share in cash to Warner Bros. Discovery investors. Previously, the offer was $30 a share.

The company also agreed to pay $7 billion to Warner should the deal fail to clear various regulatory hurdles. That was a $2 billion increase. (The previous commitment was $5 billion.)

Paramount reaffirmed that it would cover the $2.8 billion termination fee that Warner would owe Netflix if Warner abandoned its deal with the streamer.

Paramount also said it would pay a so-called ticking fee sooner. Now, the company said it would pay an additional $0.25 per quarter to shareholders after Sept. 30 until a Paramount-Warner transaction closed. It also agreed to cover Warner’s potential $1.5 billion in financing costs associated with a planned debt exchange offer.

Additionally, Paramountsaid it “agreed to an obligation to contribute additional equity funding to the extent needed to support the solvency certificate required by PSKY’s lending banks.” That provision was offered because Warner board members have expressed concerns that Paramount may not be able to round up sufficient financing to close such a gargantuan deal.

But the company’s earnings — and the declines its facing in its own TV business — raised concerns about the potential Warner acquisition, John Conca, analyst at Third Bridge, wrote in an email.

“It is becoming questionable why leadership is aggressively pursuing [Warner], a deal that would effectively double their exposure to dying linear networks while also creating even more massive integration headaches,” he said.