White House Explores Executive Action to Cap Credit Card Interest at Ten Percent
President Trump’s proposal for a one-year ten percent ceiling on credit card APR is being shaped into potential regulatory action amid industry resistance
The White House is actively considering executive measures to advance President Donald Trump’s public call for a one-year cap on credit card interest rates at ten percent, an initiative designed to ease borrowing costs for American consumers and address affordability concerns.
Administration officials are drafting details for possible action that could direct federal regulators to implement new restrictions on how much interest credit-card issuers can charge, even as they discuss the legal scope of such authority and engage with members of Congress on complementary legislative options.
This effort forms part of a broader strategy to reduce financial strain on households carrying high-cost debt.
President Trump revived the credit-card interest-rate cap proposal in early January, framing the idea as a means of preventing what he described as excessive charges on consumer borrowing that have burdened millions of Americans.
The cap is intended to take effect on January 20, coinciding with the one-year anniversary of Trump’s return to the White House.
However, there is ongoing debate within Washington over the administration’s legal authority to impose such a cap without congressional approval, as credit-card interest rates are traditionally governed by federal statutes and regulatory frameworks that would require statutory change to enforce a permanent ceiling.
The proposal has gained attention from lawmakers across the political spectrum, with some senators indicating willingness to pursue complementary legislation that could formalise an interest-rate cap.
Meanwhile, major financial institutions and industry groups have voiced significant opposition, arguing that a rigid interest-rate limit could constrain credit availability, particularly for higher-risk borrowers, and lead to unintended consequences for consumers and the broader economy.
Despite this resistance, the White House view emphasises potential savings for households carrying revolving balances and the symbolic impact of confronting what the administration characterises as unfair costs, making the initiative a prominent part of policy discussions in Washington.
Administration officials are drafting details for possible action that could direct federal regulators to implement new restrictions on how much interest credit-card issuers can charge, even as they discuss the legal scope of such authority and engage with members of Congress on complementary legislative options.
This effort forms part of a broader strategy to reduce financial strain on households carrying high-cost debt.
President Trump revived the credit-card interest-rate cap proposal in early January, framing the idea as a means of preventing what he described as excessive charges on consumer borrowing that have burdened millions of Americans.
The cap is intended to take effect on January 20, coinciding with the one-year anniversary of Trump’s return to the White House.
However, there is ongoing debate within Washington over the administration’s legal authority to impose such a cap without congressional approval, as credit-card interest rates are traditionally governed by federal statutes and regulatory frameworks that would require statutory change to enforce a permanent ceiling.
The proposal has gained attention from lawmakers across the political spectrum, with some senators indicating willingness to pursue complementary legislation that could formalise an interest-rate cap.
Meanwhile, major financial institutions and industry groups have voiced significant opposition, arguing that a rigid interest-rate limit could constrain credit availability, particularly for higher-risk borrowers, and lead to unintended consequences for consumers and the broader economy.
Despite this resistance, the White House view emphasises potential savings for households carrying revolving balances and the symbolic impact of confronting what the administration characterises as unfair costs, making the initiative a prominent part of policy discussions in Washington.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
