On May 2, 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) opened the first major round of public hearings that focused squarely on the American motion-picture industry. The committee’s hearings in Washington aimed to expose alleged communist influence in Hollywood and to identify individuals who had belonged to or supported the Communist Party. What followed over weeks of testimony was a contentious, highly publicized process that precipitated the Hollywood blacklist — a list of writers, actors, directors and other film professionals denied work because of real or alleged political affiliations. HUAC’s focus on Hollywood had been building through earlier investigations of communist activity in other sectors, but the May hearings represented a decisive turn: the committee subpoenaed a broad cross-section of industry personnel and summoned them to testify publicly. Those called faced a fraught choice—cooperate by naming colleagues and former associates, refuse to answer on First Amendment or Fifth Amendment grounds, or deny party membership. The committee and its supporters argued that such inquiries were essential to safeguard national security and protect American institutions from subversive influence. Critics characterized the proceedings as a politicized witch hunt that violated civil liberties and fostered climate of fear and self-censorship. A distinct feature of the 1947 hearings was their publicity. Transcripts and press coverage brought the proceedings into the homes of ordinary Americans, subjecting witnesses to intense public scrutiny. Studios, fearful of political pressure and public backlash, reacted by tightening employment practices. The Paramount and other studio chiefs later expressed support for cooperation with the committee; some signed statements pledging to dismiss employees suspected of communist ties. The practical effect for many industry professionals was immediate: agents and employers avoided hiring anyone with a questionable political past, and careers stalled or ended for those named or even merely cited during testimony. The hearings also sharpened divisions within the industry and the wider left-leaning cultural community. Those who cooperated with HUAC, whether voluntarily or under subpoena, sometimes faced backlash from peers who saw such cooperation as betrayal. Conversely, those who refused to answer or invoked constitutional protections were often labeled uncooperative and, in many cases, effectively blacklisted. The lack of clear, consistent legal protections for employment in the private sector meant that studio and production leaders could and did act on committee lists and press reports without judicial mandate. Historians note that the 1947 hearings did not create the blacklist out of whole cloth but accelerated and institutionalized an emerging practice. The blacklist would persist in various forms through the late 1940s and 1950s, reshaping personnel decisions, the content of films, and the careers of notable creative figures. Over time, some individuals cleared their names, and formal repudiations of the blacklist emerged, but the immediate human and professional costs in the years following the 1947 testimony were significant and long-lasting. The legacy of the May 2, 1947 hearings endures as a cautionary episode in American cultural and political history: a moment when national-security anxieties, partisan politics and the economics of a centralized studio system combined to curtail professional freedoms and reshape an entire creative industry. Debates about the hearings’ legality, morality and long-term consequences continue among scholars, with many viewing the events as a complex interplay of genuine concern about foreign influence and the excesses of political repression.