White House Weighs Executive Action to Cap Credit Card Rates

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Bloomberg

January 16, 2026 at 6:39 PM EST


The White House is weighing an executive action to enact President Donald Trump’s call for a cap on credit card interest rates, in addition to other measures seeking to ease US affordability challenges.

The plan, which is still being crafted as administration officials discuss the terms with industry and Congress, is designed to lower interest rates on credit cards as part of a broader push to reduce costs for Americans, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump’s action may also call on regulators to relax certain liquidity standards to help make the plan more attractive for the banks, said the people, who asked not to be identified citing private discussions.

Trump’s administration has promised to announce a range of measures as part of his affordability push, including a ban on institutional investors buying single-family homes and a move to let savers tap 401(k) retirement plans for home down payments. Although the timing on the potential executive action on credit card rates remains in flux, Trump said he’ll give further details on his affordability push when he speaks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland next week.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Friday in an interview on Mornings With Maria on Fox Business that the administration has been in talks with the big banks who “think that the president’s on to something.” The measures under consideration from the White House also include a possible bid to block stock buybacks for publicly traded homebuilders, some of the people said. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte teed up the idea in an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-16/white-house-weighs-executive-action-to-cap-credit-card-rates

---

No paywall (gift)

[SalamanderSleeps]

1. The Trump distraction machine is going full tilt! eom

[durablend]

2. Expect mass account closures and credit limit cuts if this goes through

Or maybe that's his objective to screw over the masses.

[Bengus81]

3. BFD Trump,it's too fucking late and what would be YOUR cap? 35-40%

[Old Crank]

4. Capitalists now want Price controls.

Where are the lieberarians?
Krugman suggests just bring back the agency that protects borrowers that he has slashed.

[The Madcap]

5. So he now wants us to use cash for our purchases?

I would think that would stifle consumption significantly. Also, I would think those of us who pay the full balance every month would end up getting charged interest just to make up for some of the issuer's lost profits.

Don't get me wrong. I think credit card rates are extortionate, but a chop of rates so extreme so quickly would be a devastating shock to the system.

Hold onto your pennies. You might need them later.

[Jacson6]

6. The only interest rates he could dictate are loans for the Federal Government.

Congress would have to pass a law and that is impossible because the banks fill their campaign accounts with money.

[Grins]

7. "Executive action?" On private businesses?

Can’t wait for the response from fiscal conservatives.

[bronxiteforever]

8. Alert! Trump Performative Trap. He knows the executive order

Will be challenged in the Courts and be found illegal. He makes the GOP look like concerned citizens without having to place the federal legislature in the crosshairs by voting against the interests of the banksters (their best buds). Heavens forbid that the GOP Congress ever be accountable for any positions.

“It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

[snot]

9. The interest rates now charged are FAR greater than allowed historically

either in this country or elsewhere. In Islamic cultures, any interest at all was considered to be usury and unlawful. In the US back in the 70's, there was an 18% cap on credit card rates – even during the height of stagflation, when inflation was much higher than it is now (actually, if I recall correctly, even 18% cap was a maximum that could be charged only if T-Bill rates had risen to a rate above where they are now).

While I fear that a cap may be painful for some, the reality is that higher rates are strong evidence of just how desperately sick our economy and financial laws are – it's a symptom of the money-printing that's gone on to fund wars that were fruitless for all but the MIC & Big Oil, of the decades-long suppression of wages, of the dismantling of Wall St. regulation, etc., etc..

This is a complex subject, but basically, the lack of lower caps on interest charged to ordinary consumers is a safety valve that has allowed the 1% to plunder us harder and longer than should ever have been permitted. While many other reforms are also necessary, it was clearly a mistake to eliminate usury caps to begin with; and in the bigger, longer-term picture, caps should definitely be re-imposed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Only suggestion of what he could do is "invoke the interstate commerce clause", but that's for Congress

Lobbyists and industry trade groups spent the week working to figure out how Trump exactly planned to implement such an order. One option expected to be under consideration has been to invoke the interstate commerce clause as a way to override state usury limits, according to a lobbyist involved in industry discussions around responding to a possible executive order.

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Nothing in the whole Wiki article about the president or executive. I think Bloomberg ought to be explaining that the "option" involves ignoring the Constitution.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. "Nothing in the whole Wiki article about the president or executive."

Every federal agency (and I worked for one for over 30 years before retiring) "invokes" the "interstate commerce clause" in order claim jurisdiction of any regulated "product" that crosses state lines (or borders).

When "interstate banking" was pretty much expanded - H.R.3841 - Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (and its amendments), that confirmed that banks could domicile in one state and open branches outside the state, and have their terms and conditions apply to their branches nationwide (including credit card interest rates).

I posted here about this conundrum, specifically with the card rates, that goes back even earlier - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3596130

The unanimous SCOTUS ruling that established this -

Marquette Nat. Bank v. First of Omaha Svc. Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978)

(snip)

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for decision is whether the National Bank Act, Rev.Stat. § 5197, as amended, 12 U.S. C § 5, [Footnote 1] authorizes a national bank based in one State to charge its out-of-state credit-card customers an interest rate on unpaid balances allowed by its home State, when that rate is greater than that permitted by the State of the bank's nonresident customers. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the bank is allowed by § 85 to charge the higher rate. 262 N.W.2d 358 (1977). We affirm.

(snip)

I would think, as you noted, that Congress would need to amend the various banking laws to deal with the rates versus an "Executive Order" unilaterally proclaiming a cap (and many of us have wanted some kind of cap for forever)!

An "Executive Order" is SUPPOSED to be a "guidance document" that informs the relevant Executive Branch agencies on how to carry out existing laws (most commonly, through creating regulations, etc), NOT make up new laws.