The new CREATE Act (“Creative Relief and Expensing for Artistic Entertainment” you gotta love it) expands tax breaks for film, TV, and live productions, doubling the limits that can be deducted. It’s designed to boost U.S. investment in creative projects. The CREATE Act expands tax incentives to boost domestic film, backed by executive rhetoric calling for tariffs on foreign-made movies. On the other, the federal government maintains a hands-off stance on regulating generative AI tools that mimic human creators, raising concerns about authorship, compensation, and the future of creative labor. The result is a policy paradox: efforts to reshore creativity while leaving its core protections unguarded.
The Act’s basis has executive support. The Administration even said it was authorizing 100% tariffs on foreign movies, to get them made in Hollywood again. But there’s an incongruence in the current approach that should be obvious. On one hand, there’s a stated and very public push to repatriate film production;a reshoring effort presumably aimed at boosting jobs, revitalizing cultural industries, and perhaps reclaiming a sense of the Golden Age of Hollywood.
At the same time, however, the administration espouses a hands-off approach to regulating generative tools that mimic voices, likenesses, and styles. The Administration’s 2025 AI Action Plan explicitly calls for removing regulatory barriers to AI development. It rescinded prior executive orders that imposed guardrails, framing them as obstacles to innovation and national competitiveness.
This deregulatory stance raises serious questions about the future of human authorship and compensation. The lack of clear federal legislation, and efforts to kneecap state-level protections, creates a kind of free-for-all that could undercut the very creative industries reshoring is meant to support.
The paradox becomes even more pronounced when you look at what’s happened over at the Copyright Office. After releasing a report that challenged the idea that AI training on copyrighted works is fair use, and warned of market dilution from AI-generated content, the Office’s leadership was abruptly changed. The leadership transition has left key functions in limbo, including finalization of the AI report.
The result? A rudderless Copyright Office at a time when it’s needed most. Registration certificates are being issued without a permanent Register’s signature, raising questions about their validity. And we end up with two conflicting narratives: one touting investment in American creativity, and another championing innovation without guardrails, creating a kind of policy whiplash.
In outwardly championing American creative industries while sidestepping foundational questions of authorship and protection, the disjointed approach risks building a stage without anyone left to perform on it.