Questa è una versione PDF del contenuto. Per la versione completa e aggiornata, visita:
Verrai reindirizzato automaticamente...
WASHINGTON — The deadline has arrived. Today, Tuesday, January 20, 2026, marks the date President Donald Trump set for the nation’s largest financial institutions to comply with his demand for a universal 10% cap on credit card interest rates. The ultimatum, issued just a week ago, has sent shockwaves through Wall Street and Main Street alike, triggering a frenzy of public interest and uncertainty. According to trending data, the term "bank" has surged with over 20,000 searches in the last 24 hours, as Americans scramble to understand whether their high-interest debt is about to be slashed—or if their credit lines are about to be cut.
The standoff represents one of the most significant confrontations between the White House and the private financial sector in modern history. While the administration frames the move as a necessary relief measure for the "forgotten man and woman" struggling with inflation, banking executives warn that such a drastic intervention could destabilize the credit markets and shrink GDP. As the clock ticks down, the tension in Washington is palpable, with reports from The New York Times indicating that administration officials and bank lobbyists have been locked in emergency meetings throughout the weekend.
This latest economic push is not happening in a vacuum. It is part of a broader, aggressive strategy by the Trump administration to reshape the U.S. finance landscape, a strategy that includes relentless pressure on the Federal Reserve and the floating of novel, state-backed financial products. As the trading day opens, all eyes are on the markets to see which side will blink first.
The core of the current crisis is the President’s demand that credit card issuers cap annual percentage rates (APRs) at 10%—a figure significantly lower than the current national average, which hovers near 20-25%. According to CNBC, the White House has framed this as a non-negotiable expectation, though the legal mechanisms for enforcing such a cap without Congressional legislation remain murky. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated on Friday that the President has "an expectation and frankly a demand" for compliance, leaving the specific consequences of non-compliance ominously vague.
The banking industry’s response has been a mix of confusion and defiance. Mark Mason, the Chief Financial Officer of Citigroup, told reporters that a mandatory cap "is not something we could or would support," citing the potential for restricted credit access for millions of consumers. The fear among lenders is that a forced rate reduction would make lending to higher-risk borrowers mathematically impossible, leading to mass account closures rather than lower payments. According to reports from The Guardian, industry analysts estimate that a hard cap could wipe out billions in projected revenue, prompting a sell-off in stocks across the financial sector.
Despite the pushback, the administration appears undeterred. Sources close to the negotiations suggest that the President is willing to use the "bully pulpit" and potential executive orders to pressure institutions into submission, drawing parallels to his previous successful pressure campaigns on pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers.
Amid the standoff, a potential off-ramp has emerged in the form of a new financial product. According to CNBC, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has floated the idea of a "Trump Card"—a voluntary credit card product offered by banks to underserved Americans, potentially backed or incentivized by the government. Hassett suggested that these cards could serve as the vehicle for the President’s affordability push, allowing banks to offer lower rates to specific segments of the population without a blanket cap on all existing accounts.
This proposal has been met with cautious intrigue. While it avoids the legal quagmire of a government-mandated price control, it raises questions about the government’s role in consumer finance. If major banks agree to issue these "Trump Cards," it could be framed as a political victory for the President while allowing the banks to preserve their broader pricing models. However, as of this morning, no major bank has officially committed to the program, leaving the 10% deadline as the primary point of contention.
The battle over credit cards is inextricably linked to the President’s ongoing feud with the Federal Reserve. With inflation currently tracking at approximately 3%—above the Fed’s 2% target—the central bank has been hesitant to slash interest rates as aggressively as the White House desires. According to The Guardian, President Trump has spent much of the last year attacking Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose term is set to expire in May 2026, urging him to lower rates to stimulate growth.
The President’s critics argue that his dual approach—demanding lower interest rates from the Fed while simultaneously imposing tariffs and seeking to cap consumer credit rates—risks overheating the economy. Former officials and economists have warned that this combination could lead to a resurgence of inflation or even stagflation. However, the administration maintains that its "America First" trade policies and deregulation efforts will unleash productivity that outpaces price increases.
The uncertainty surrounding the Fed’s independence has added a risk premium to U.S. assets. Investors are closely watching to see if the President will attempt to appoint a "shadow chair" or further challenge Powell’s authority in the coming months. The outcome of the credit card dispute may serve as a bellwether for how much control the executive branch can successfully exert over monetary policy.
The uncertainty has created volatility in the markets. Bank stocks have seen significant fluctuations in pre-market trading today, with investors weighing the risk of regulatory crackdowns against the potential for a negotiated settlement. Hedge funds, which had reportedly been loading up on bank stocks following the election, are now reassessing their positions in light of the administration’s populist economic turn.
Broader economic indicators paint a complex picture. While GDP growth remains positive, the "affordability crisis" cited by the President is real for many Americans. High interest rates have made mortgages and credit card debt increasingly burdensome, fueling the populist demand for relief. The trending search volume for "bank" reflects a population eager for financial reprieve, regardless of the macroeconomic consequences.
As the day progresses, all eyes will be on the White House press briefing room and the headquarters of major banks in New York. Will the banks call the President’s bluff, or will a last-minute deal be struck to introduce the "Trump Card" and avert a direct collision? The answer will likely define the economic trajectory of 2026.
Today’s deadline is more than just a policy dispute; it is a stress test for the American financial system and the limits of presidential power. President Trump is pushing the U.S. economy into uncharted territory, challenging long-held norms about central bank independence and free-market pricing. Whether this strategy results in the relief promised to consumers or the instability feared by economists remains to be seen. As the deadline passes, the only certainty is that the relationship between Washington and Wall Street has been fundamentally altered.
It remains uncertain whether your rate will automatically drop to 10 percent despite the deadline set by President Trump. Banks have expressed strong resistance, warning that a mandatory cap might lead to account closures rather than lower payments for everyone. The situation is fluid, with potential compromises like a voluntary low-rate card still being negotiated between the White House and financial institutions.
The Trump Card is a concept floated by the National Economic Council as a voluntary credit product for underserved Americans. Instead of forcing a blanket cap on all existing credit lines, this specific card would offer lower interest rates, possibly with government incentives. It represents a potential middle ground that allows banks to offer relief to specific groups without disrupting their broader pricing models.
The legal mechanisms for enforcing a universal interest rate cap without Congressional legislation are considered murky by legal experts. While the administration is using significant political pressure and threats of executive orders, there is no clear statutory authority cited for this specific demand. Consequently, the enforcement of this ultimatum relies heavily on negotiation and public pressure rather than established law.
Financial experts warn that a forced reduction in interest rates could make it harder for many consumers to access credit. Banks argue that capping rates at 10 percent makes lending to higher-risk borrowers unprofitable, which could result in reduced credit limits or mass account cancellations. Therefore, while the policy aims to help borrowers, it might inadvertently shrink the availability of loans for those who need them most.
The banking industry opposes the deadline because the demanded 10 percent rate is far below the current market average of 20 to 25 percent. Executives claim that complying with this cap would cause billions in revenue losses and destabilize the financial sector. They argue that such drastic intervention ignores market realities and inflation data, making it financially dangerous for institutions to maintain current lending levels.