Why U.S. Movie and TV Production Is Moving—and What Lawmakers Could Do About It

For decades Hollywood symbolized the world’s preeminent center for film and television production. Today, however, an increasing share of movie and TV production is being filmed outside traditional U.S. hubs. Rising costs, competitive international tax incentives, and differences in infrastructure and permitting have combined to redirect projects to other states and countries. The trend presents not only economic risks—fewer local jobs and lost business for supporting industries—but also a strategic challenge to maintaining America’s cultural leadership in global entertainment.

From Set to Shore: Why Productions Leave U.S. Locations

Production teams weigh dozens of variables when choosing where to shoot. Several of the most influential factors pushing projects away from established U.S. centers are:

• Cost advantages from tax incentives: Many foreign jurisdictions and some U.S. states offer refundable tax credits, cash rebates or transferable credits that materially reduce a production’s net budget.
• Modern facilities and scale: New soundstages, post-production clusters and visual-effects hubs lower logistical friction and reduce the need to ferry crews across long distances.
• Faster approval and permitting: Shorter, clearer permit timelines help crews stay on schedule and avoid costly overruns.
• Workforce availability: Regions that invest in training and technical education attract experienced local crews and specialist vendors.

Put simply, producers follow an equation: minimize outlays while maximizing speed and technical capability. When another jurisdiction offers a stronger mix of incentives and infrastructure, shooting there becomes hard to resist.

Snapshot: Incentive Landscape (typical ranges, circa 2023–2024)

Policy Gaps: Why Federal and State Responses Fall Short

Despite the clear economic footprint of the film and television sector—spanning creative staff, technical crews, hospitality and local services—policy responses have been fragmented. Several systemic weaknesses explain why many states and federal policymakers have struggled to keep pace with competing jurisdictions:

• Patchwork incentives: Incentive programs differ widely from state to state, creating an uneven national playing field. While a few states offer generous packages, others provide limited or no support.
• Lack of national coordination: There is no federal framework designed to harmonize incentives or help states develop complementary strategies that avoid a race to the bottom.
• Underinvestment in talent pipelines: Vocational training, film school partnerships and apprenticeship initiatives have not scaled consistently across the country, constraining the available local labor pool.
• Bureaucratic friction: Lengthy permitting processes and inconsistent local rules add scheduling risk and cost, making alternative locations with streamlined processes more attractive.

These shortcomings mean the U.S. risks losing both near-term productions and the longer-term industrial base that supports them.

Real-World Effects: Jobs, Local Economies and Cultural Reach

When a major series or studio feature shoots elsewhere, the loss ripples through local economies. Production expenditures benefit hotels, catering, transportation, construction and a wide range of small businesses. Beyond immediate spending, there’s a multiplier effect: training local crews creates cluster effects that attract suppliers, post-production houses and visual-effects vendors.

Consider two common scenarios:

• An episodic streaming series relocates to a state offering generous rebates and ready-made stages, bringing weeks of steady employment for set builders, grips and craft services that would otherwise have gone to workers in the original location.
• A high-end feature opts for an overseas studio with integrated VFX facilities and a single-point permitting system, trimming production time and risk on a tight schedule—advantages that often outweigh small cost differences.

What Experts Recommend: A Blueprint for Reviving Domestic Filmmaking

Policy analysts and industry leaders commonly propose a set of coordinated strategies to make the U.S. more competitive in film and television production without necessarily escalating public cost. Key proposals include:

• Federal-level tax incentives: A targeted national credit could complement state programs and level the field for productions that meet defined labor and investment standards.
• Interstate coordination: A standing council or compact could streamline permitting best practices, reduce duplicative bureaucracy and encourage regions to develop specialized niches rather than competing purely on price.
• Scaling workforce development: Investment in apprenticeships, community-college curricula and on-set training would expand the pool of skilled technicians and reduce reliance on imported crews.
• Public-private infrastructure investments: Grants and low-interest financing for soundstages, post-production centers and broadband capacity can reduce the capital barriers that deter studio expansion.
• Performance-based incentives: Structure credits to reward local hiring, training hours and infrastructure investment to ensure public returns.

Policy Example — A Coordinated Incentive Model

Instead of competing solely on raw credit percentages, states and the federal government could tie incentives to measurable outcomes (e.g., local hires, apprenticeship hours, post-production spending). This aligns public support with long-term economic development rather than one-off location fees.

Case Studies: What Has Worked — and Where

Several jurisdictions demonstrate how a combination of incentives, infrastructure and workforce initiatives can attract sustained production activity:

• Georgia (U.S.): A consistent tax credit policy paired with studio investment turned the state into a national production center for many network and streaming series.
• Ontario (Canada): A mix of federal and provincial credits plus established post-production clusters make Toronto and surrounding regions attractive for both features and VFX-heavy projects.
• United Kingdom: Strong film tax relief, coupled with a dense VFX and post ecosystem, has kept high-end projects coming to U.K. studios and stages.

These examples underline that incentives alone are rarely sufficient; they work best when combined with tangible infrastructure and a trained labor force.

Risks of Inaction and the Road Ahead

Without a strategic policy response, the United States may continue to cede production activity to other states and countries. The long-term risks include:

• Permanent loss of specialized labor and suppliers
• Reduced opportunities for new creative voices to emerge domestically
• Diminished economic spillovers for communities that historically benefited from production activity

Reversing or slowing this migration requires targeted public policy, industry commitment to local hiring and private investment in facilities. The right mix of incentives, workforce programs, and streamlined permitting can restore competitive advantage without simply escalating costs to taxpayers.

Conclusion: Reclaiming America’s Production Edge

Movie and TV production decisions are increasingly transactional and global. To protect jobs, preserve cultural influence and sustain a vibrant domestic film and television production sector, U.S. policymakers must adopt coordinated, outcome-focused strategies. Combining federal and state incentives with investments in workforce development and infrastructure, and reforming permitting processes, can make American locations attractive again—not purely on price, but on speed, quality and long-term value.

Lawmakers and industry leaders face a choice: accept a slow drift of production to other jurisdictions, or work together to rebuild a competitive, resilient domestic filmmaking ecosystem.