Share and Follow

It remains uncertain whether congressional consent is required for this initiative.
WASHINGTON — In a Truth Social announcement on Friday evening, President Donald Trump proposed a 10% cap on credit card interest rates for a period of one year.
Trump suggested the cap should be implemented starting January 20, marking exactly one year after the commencement of his second term in office. However, the post did not provide details on the mechanism for implementing the cap, whether credit card companies would agree to it voluntarily, or the role of government enforcement in this process.
“We will no longer allow the American Public to be ‘ripped off’ by Credit Card Companies charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%, and even more,” he expressed in his post.
Trump attributed the high interest rates to former President Joe Biden and emphasized “AFFORDABILITY!” as the driving force behind his proposal.
It’s a move Sen. Elizabeth Warren called a “joke.”
“Begging credit card companies to play nice is a joke. I said a year ago if Trump was serious I’d work to pass a bill to cap rates. Since then, he’s done nothing but try to shut down the CFPB,” she wrote. “Trump doesn’t care about affordability.”
He previously called for interest rates to lower, calling the 30% rate “unacceptable” while on the campaign trail in 2024. Reuters said analysts dismissed it at the time because that kind of action would require congressional approval. It’s unclear if congressional approval is needed for Trump’s current idea.
Similar legislation has previously been introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate, but with a much longer timeline to enact.
The Biden administration tried to cap all credit card late fees to $8 in 2024 in an effort to end what his administration called “junk fees.” Regulators said the move would have saved Americans up to $10 billion a year by cutting the average credit card late fee down from $32.
A Texas judge blocked the order, and the Trump administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau later sided with banks suing over the change, vacating the rule.