Trump's 10% Credit Card Cap Deadline Passes With Little Compliance
Jan. 20 deadline passed with major banks leaving APRs largely unchanged and questions remain over enforcement and credit access.
Overview
LEAD: On Jan. 20, 2025, the deadline President Donald Trump set for credit card companies to cap annual percentage rates at 10% for one year arrived and major banks and card issuers largely left APRs unchanged, according to industry statements and financial analysts.
CONTEXT: Trump announced the one-year 10% cap in a Jan. 9, 2025 post on Truth Social that gave banks 11 days to comply and drew public backing from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Josh Hawley and a Vanderbilt analysis estimating $100 billion in annual consumer savings, according to the post and the analysis.
RESPONSE: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Jan. 16, 2025 that the president 'expects' compliance while major banking executives including JPMorgan CFO Jeremy Barnum and Citi CEO Jane Fraser and industry groups warned the cap would restrict access to credit, according to their public statements and earnings calls.
SCALE: Credit card APRs averaged about 19.7% at the end of December, Americans held $1.2 trillion in credit card debt in the third quarter of 2025, and an America's Credit Unions Jan. 12, 2025 analysis estimated two-thirds of cardholders carrying a balance and almost all 47 million Americans with subprime scores would likely lose access to credit under a 10% cap, according to the analysis and federal data.
FORWARD: Experts including Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, said on Jan. 12, 2025 that the proposal would be unenforceable without congressional action and would require legislation such as a bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2025, even as fintech Bilt rolled out cards capped at 10% for one year and banks said they are evaluating product and underwriting changes, industry officials and policy analysts said.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame the proposal as risky and impractical by privileging industry executives' warnings, citing historical failures and economic harms, and foregrounding banks' feasibility concerns. Editorial choices—selection and placement of multiple bank voices, emphasis on "restrict access to credit," and limited consumer-advocate perspectives—create a pro-industry cautionary narrative.