Structural Shock: A Comprehensive Impact Analysis of the Proposed 10% Credit Card Interest Rate Cap on Major U.S. Financial Institutions

1. Executive Strategic Overview#

The proposal by President Donald Trump to impose a temporary, one-year cap of 10% on credit card interest rates represents a potential seismic shift in the operational dynamics of the United States consumer finance sector. Announced via social media on January 10, 2026, and intended to be effective January 20, 2026, this policy intervention challenges the fundamental risk-based pricing models that have defined unsecured consumer lending since the deregulation of the late 20th century.¹ If enacted, this policy would fundamentally alter the risk-reward calculus that underpins unsecured consumer lending, forcing a rapid and severe contraction in credit availability, particularly for subprime and near-prime borrowers. While framed as a populist measure to alleviate consumer affordability pressures and combat "rip-off" rates hovering between 20% and 30%, the second- and third-order effects would likely precipitate a radical restructuring of revenue models across the banking and payments landscape.¹

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the implications for major financial institutions, specifically JPMorgan Chase, Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal. The analysis differentiates between credit issuers (JPMorgan Chase, PayPal via credit products, Capital One, Synchrony), who bear direct interest rate exposure and credit risk, and payment networks (Visa, Mastercard), whose exposure is indirect through transaction volume volatility. Furthermore, the report examines the specific vulnerabilities of fintech hybrids like PayPal, which straddle the line between merchant processing, digital wallet services, and unsecured lending partnership models.

The core thesis of this analysis is that a 10% cap acts less as a price control and more as a de facto regulatory ban on subprime credit card lending. With the Federal Funds Rate and the cost of funds remaining elevated in the current economic cycle, a 10% cap leaves insufficient margin to cover charge-offs for borrowers with FICO scores below roughly 660. Consequently, institutions like JPMorgan Chase would likely institute massive de-risking programs, canceling cards and slashing limits to preserve return on equity (ROE). Conversely, payment networks like Visa and Mastercard face a "volume-versus-velocity" paradox: while the number of active cards would decrease, the structural shift toward debit and alternative lending mechanisms like Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) could mitigate long-term volume deterioration, provided consumption does not collapse entirely.

1.1 The Macroeconomic Context#

The proposal arrives at a moment of significant tension in the U.S. financial system. Total outstanding credit card debt has surpassed $1.23 trillion as of late 2025, driven by persistent inflation and consumer reliance on revolving credit to maintain living standards.⁴ Interest rates on credit cards have climbed sharply, tracking the Federal Reserve's aggressive rate hikes, with averages exceeding 21% and subprime rates often touching 30%.³

In this environment, a 10% cap is mathematically disjointed from the cost of capital. Banks typically require a spread over their cost of funds to cover three critical components:

1. Operating Expenses: The cost of servicing accounts, technology, and compliance.

2. Credit Losses (Net Charge-Offs): The statistical probability of default, which rises exponentially as credit scores decrease.

3. Return on Capital: The profit margin required to justify the allocation of regulatory capital to the asset class.

When the risk-free rate or the bank's cost of funds is in the 4-5% range, a 10% cap leaves a gross margin of only ~5-6%. For subprime borrowers, whose annualized charge-off rates often exceed 10-15%, this equation guarantees a loss on every dollar lent.³ The market's immediate negative reaction-with stocks like Synchrony Financial (SYF) and Bread Financial (BFH) dropping over 10%-reflects this arithmetic reality.⁷

1.2 Defining the Players: Issuers vs. Networks vs. Hybrids#

To understand the nuance of the impact, one must distinguish between the varying business models exposed to the regulation:

The following sections will deconstruct the specific legal feasibility of the proposal before diving into deep operational analyses of each key firm.

2. Legal and Constitutional Framework: The Feasibility of Implementation#

A critical component of risk analysis for financial institutions is determining the probability that such a radical proposal could actually become law. The mechanisms for implementation-Executive Order versus Congressional Legislation-carry vastly different probabilities and timelines.

2.1 The Limits of Executive Authority: IEEPA and TWEA#

President Trump's announcement implies a unilateral executive action, referencing his authority as President.¹ The primary statutory vehicle typically cited for such broad economic powers is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. However, legal analysis suggests that using IEEPA to cap domestic interest rates would be a significant and likely unconstitutional expansion of executive power.

Historical Context of IEEPA:

IEEPA was enacted to limit the emergency powers Congress had previously delegated to the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) of 1917.8 TWEA was originally a wartime statute used to regulate international transactions with enemy powers. Over the 20th century, presidents used TWEA for domestic economic control, most notably President Roosevelt during the 1933 banking crisis and President Nixon to impose a 10% import surcharge in 1971.8

Recognizing this overreach, Congress passed IEEPA to restrict these powers to "unusual and extraordinary threats" that have their source "in whole or substantial part outside the United States".⁸

• The "Foreign Source" Requirement: The statutory language of IEEPA explicitly requires the threat to originate outside the U.S. High domestic credit card interest rates are a purely domestic phenomenon resulting from internal market dynamics and Federal Reserve policy.

• The Yoshida Precedent: While the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. (1975) upheld Nixon's use of TWEA for tariffs, this was prior to the enactment of IEEPA, which specifically narrowed the scope of emergency powers.⁹

Constitutional Challenges:

If the President were to invoke IEEPA to cap interest rates, it would likely face immediate litigation. Plaintiffs (banks and trade associations) would argue that:

1. No Foreign Threat: There is no "foreign" nexus to domestic credit card pricing.

2. Major Questions Doctrine: The Supreme Court has increasingly applied the "major questions doctrine," which requires explicit congressional authorization for executive agency actions with vast economic and political significance.¹² A 10% cap affecting trillions in debt is undoubtedly a "major question."

3. Non-Delegation Doctrine: Critics would argue that if IEEPA allows the President to rewrite domestic contract law, it represents an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power by Congress.¹¹

2.2 The Legislative Path: Gridlock or Populist Convergence?#

Given the legal frailty of an executive order, the most durable path for the cap is legislation. Historically, interest rate caps have struggled to pass due to strong industry lobbying. However, the current political landscape presents a unique "populist horseshoe" where the far-left and the populist-right align.

• Bipartisan Support: Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) previously introduced the "Capping Credit Card Interest Rates Act," proposing a similar 10% cap (and an earlier bill proposing 18%).¹

• Legislative Hurdles: Despite this alignment, passage remains a "low-probability risk".¹⁵ The banking lobby (American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association) exerts tremendous influence, and moderate legislators would likely oppose a measure that economists warn would contract credit supply.¹⁶

• The National Bank Act Precedent: Currently, under the Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. (1978) Supreme Court decision, national banks can export the interest rates of their home state to borrowers nationwide. This is why many card issuers are based in Delaware or South Dakota, where usury caps are non-existent or high. A federal 10% cap would preempt these state laws, overturning decades of banking structure.¹⁵

Conclusion on Implementation Probability: While the probability of a legislative 10% cap is low, the threat of such action acts as a "Sword of Damocles." It may force regulators like the CFPB (if active) or the banks themselves to adopt voluntary caps or more transparent pricing to preempt draconian legislation. For the purpose of this report, however, we analyze the impact as if the policy were enacted, to understand the maximum exposure of these institutions.

3. Theoretical Economic Impact: The Mechanics of Dislocation#

Before examining specific firms, it is essential to establish the economic principles that would govern the market's reaction. The imposition of a binding price ceiling (the 10% cap) on a market with heterogenous risk profiles (borrowers with FICO scores from 300 to 850) will inevitably lead to credit rationing and the waterbed effect.

3.1 The Waterbed Effect: Price Transfer Mechanisms#

In regulatory economics, the "waterbed effect" describes how suppressing prices in one area of a business leads to price increases in unregulated areas to maintain overall profitability. If interest revenue is artificially suppressed, issuers will seek to recoup lost margin through:

• Annual Fees: The reintroduction of fees for standard cards, potentially ranging from $50 to $100 annually, to cover operating costs that interest no longer subsidizes.

• Transaction Fees: Increased pressure to raise interchange fees (paid by merchants), though this is constrained by competition and potential regulation like the Credit Card Competition Act.

• Reward Devaluation: A massive reduction in cash-back and travel points. Currently, rewards are often funded by a mix of interchange and interest income (cross-subsidization from revolvers to transactors). If interest income collapses, the subsidy ends.¹⁸

3.2 Credit Rationing and Adverse Selection#

The most immediate effect will be the exclusion of high-risk borrowers. This is not merely theoretical; it is supported by the theory of information asymmetry (Stiglitz and Weiss, 1981). Banks cannot simply raise rates to cover the risk of subprime borrowers because the cap prevents it. Therefore, they must deny credit.

Case Study: Arkansas (17% Cap)

Arkansas provides a real-world laboratory for this effect. The state constitution imposes a hard usury cap of 17%.

• Outcome: Research shows that Arkansas is a "credit desert" for subprime borrowers. Residents with low credit scores have significantly fewer credit cards and installment loans compared to residents in neighboring states without such caps.¹⁹

• Substitution: These consumers do not stop borrowing; they shift to "non-bank" alternatives. Arkansas residents are forced to drive across state lines to obtain loans or utilize pawn shops and rent-to-own centers, often paying effective APRs exceeding 100% when fees are calculated.¹⁹

Case Study: Illinois (36% Cap)

In 2021, Illinois capped consumer loans at 36%.

• Outcome: The number of loans to subprime borrowers decreased by 38%. While the policy aimed to stop predatory lending, it effectively cut off access to formal credit for the most vulnerable, worsening the financial well-being of many who lost the ability to smooth consumption during emergencies.²¹

The 10% Projection:

A 10% cap is far more restrictive than 17% or 36%. Consequently, the contraction would be exponential. Analysts estimate that lenders would stop lending to anyone with a FICO score below ~660-700.20 This effectively removes the bottom third of the U.S. adult population from the prime credit card market.

4. Deep Dive Analysis: JPMorgan Chase (JPM)#

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) stands as the fortress of the American banking system. As a universal bank, it is diversified, yet its exposure to consumer credit remains a critical driver of its valuation and earnings power.

4.1 Exposure Profile: Earnings and Sensitivity#

In its financial reporting for late 2024 and throughout 2025, JPM demonstrated the sheer scale of its Card Services division.

• Net Interest Income (NII): In Q3 2025, JPM reported Net Interest Income of $24.1 billion, with Card Services acting as a primary driver of NII growth due to higher revolving balances.²³ This helped offset "deposit margin compression" in other areas.

• Card Services Revenue: The "Card Services & Auto" segment generated $7.2 billion in net revenue in Q3 2025 alone, up 12% year-over-year.²³ This growth was explicitly driven by "higher Card Services net interest income on higher revolving balances".²³

• Provision for Credit Losses: JPM built reserves of $550 million in Card Services in Q3 2025, anticipating loan growth and macroeconomic uncertainty.¹

Sensitivity Analysis:

A reduction of credit card yields to 10% would represent a shock of approximately 1,000 to 1,500 basis points (10-15%) on the revolving portion of the portfolio (assuming average APRs of ~22%).

• Quantitative Impact: If Card Services NII is roughly $4-5 billion per quarter (extrapolating from segment data), a 50% reduction in effective yield (dropping from 20% to 10%) could theoretically wipe out $2-2.5 billion in quarterly revenue, absent mitigation. This would represent a material hit to the Consumer & Community Banking (CCB) ROE, which stood at a robust 35% in Q3 2025.²³

4.2 Strategic Pivot: The "Transactor" Model#

JPM is arguably the best-positioned issuer to adapt to this draconian environment due to its affluent customer base and "Fortress Balance Sheet."

1. De-Risking the Asset Book: JPM would immediately cease originating cards for near-prime customers. While JPM skews prime, it still services millions of customers who revolve balances. The bank would likely close these accounts or freeze credit lines to prevent charge-offs that cannot be covered by the 10% yield.³

2. Repricing via Fees: To maintain the profitability of the Chase Sapphire and Freedom lines, JPM would likely decouple rewards from interest income.

   • Scenario: The Chase Sapphire Reserve annual fee might rise from $550 to $800.

   • Scenario: Free cards like the Chase Freedom Unlimited might introduce a $95 annual fee.

3. Wealth Integration: JPM would likely accelerate its strategy of linking credit card products to wealth management relationships. Access to a credit card could become a perk of having a minimum deposit relationship (e.g., $10,000 in a Chase Private Client account), effectively subsidizing the low loan yield with the spread earned on deposits.²³

4.3 Third-Order Effects: Brand and Loyalty#

The danger for JPM lies in the destruction of its loyalty ecosystem. If the 10% cap forces a reduction in rewards (Ultimate Rewards points), the "gamification" of spend that drives JPM's interchange volume could falter. Affluent millennials and Gen Z consumers, who choose Chase primarily for the points ecosystem, might reduce spend or switch to debit if the value proposition erodes. However, since all issuers would face the same constraint, JPM's relative scale allows it to likely offer the "least bad" rewards program, potentially consolidating market share as smaller issuers exit the market.

5. Deep Dive Analysis: Payment Networks (Visa & Mastercard)#

Visa (V) and Mastercard (MA) operate the digital rails of the global economy. Their exposure is fundamentally different from issuers; they do not hold credit risk. However, they are sensitive to the volume of transactions.

5.1 The Volume-Velocity Paradox#

The networks generate revenue primarily through Service Revenues (based on Gross Dollar Volume or GDV) and Data Processing Revenues (based on transaction count).

• The Bear Case (Volume Destruction): If 30-40% of cards (subprime) are cancelled, the physical ability of those consumers to transact on the Visa/Mastercard network vanishes. This leads to an immediate drop in transaction count.¹⁵

• The Bull Case (Debit Substitution): However, displaced credit borrowers do not stop eating or buying gas. They shift payment methods. The primary substitute for a credit card is a debit card, which also runs on the Visa/Mastercard rails.²⁴

  • Visa's Dominance: Visa controls over 65% of the U.S. debit market.²⁵ A forced migration from credit to debit actually favors Visa's market share stability, even if debit transactions sometimes carry lower network fees per ticket.

5.2 Cross-Border Resilience#

A key insulator for V/MA is their international exposure.

• Growth Divergence: In Q3 2025, Mastercard's cross-border volume grew 15%, while Visa's grew 12%.²⁶ This growth is driven by global travel and e-commerce, segments largely unaffected by U.S. domestic interest rate policy.

• Diversification: Visa's international transaction revenues comprise roughly 25% of its total revenue.²⁶ This geographic diversification provides a hedge against U.S. regulatory shocks.

5.3 Value-Added Services (VAS) as a Hedge#

Both networks have aggressively diversified into "Value-Added Services" (VAS)-cybersecurity, fraud detection, and consulting.

• Counter-Cyclical Demand: In a 10% cap environment, issuers (banks) will be desperate to reduce operating costs and prevent fraud to protect their thinning margins. This will likely drive increased demand for Visa and Mastercard's fraud and risk solutions.²⁶

• Revenue Growth: Mastercard's VAS segment grew 25% in Q3 2025, outpacing its core network revenue.²⁶ This segment acts as a shock absorber.

Analyst Verdict: Visa and Mastercard are the most resilient entities in this analysis. While a contraction in U.S. credit volume is a headwind, the substitution to debit, continued cross-border growth, and the structural necessity of their networks make them "defensive" plays in this regulatory scenario.¹⁵

6. Deep Dive Analysis: PayPal (PYPL) & The Fintech Hybrid#

PayPal occupies a precarious position as both a payments platform and a credit facilitator. Its exposure is complex, involving direct lending, partnership revenue, and point-of-sale (POS) financing.

6.1 The Synchrony Partnership Vulnerability#

A significant portion of PayPal's credit footprint involves its co-branded cards (PayPal Cashback Mastercard, PayPal Extras Mastercard) and the Venmo Credit Card. These are issued by Synchrony Bank.²⁷

• Revenue Share Mechanics: Under typical "Program Agreements," the brand partner (PayPal) receives a share of the "Program Return." This return is calculated as: > > $$\text{Program Return} = (\text{Interest Income} + \text{Fees}) - (\text{Charge-Offs} + \text{Cost of Funds} + \text{Ops Costs})$$

• Impact of Cap: A 10% cap obliterates the "Interest Income" variable. Given Synchrony's subprime-heavy portfolio, the Program Return would likely turn negative.

• Consequence: Synchrony would trigger protective clauses in the agreement, tightening underwriting standards to approve only super-prime applicants. PayPal would see a collapse in its "high-margin" revenue share from these cards, impacting its transaction take rate and overall profitability.²⁹

6.2 Proprietary Lending: PayPal Credit#

PayPal also offers "PayPal Credit" (formerly Bill Me Later), a digital revolving credit line. The APRs for this product are variable, typically Prime + 20.74% (reaching ~29.99% in high-rate environments).³¹

• The Profitability Cliff: A 10% cap renders this product unviable for the majority of its current user base. PayPal would be forced to restrict this offering, which serves as a key conversion tool for merchants (allowing customers to buy now and pay later). Losing this conversion tool could hurt PayPal's checkout value proposition relative to Apple Pay.

6.3 The "Silver Lining": Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL)#

Paradoxically, the 10% cap could be a massive boon for PayPal's "Pay in 4" product.

• Regulatory Arbitrage: Short-term BNPL products (4 payments, 6 weeks) are often structured as fee-free to the consumer, monetized instead by charging the merchant a higher fee (e.g., 3-6% of the transaction). Because there is no "interest" charged to the consumer, these products may fall outside the scope of the 10% interest rate cap.⁷

• Substitution Effect: As millions of consumers are rejected for traditional credit cards due to the cap, they will seek alternative financing at the Point of Sale. PayPal, along with competitors like Affirm and Upstart, could see a surge in demand. Analysts at Mizuho have highlighted this potential "positive ramification" for fintechs, suggesting that while the credit card business suffers, the BNPL volumes could explode, effectively capturing the displaced subprime market.⁷

Conclusion on PayPal: The short-term impact is negative due to the Synchrony exposure and loss of revolving interest revenue. However, the long-term strategic opportunity to consolidate the "displaced" credit market into its BNPL ecosystem is substantial.

7. The Vulnerable: Capital One (COF) and Synchrony (SYF)#

To fully understand the systemic risk, one must analyze the institutions most exposed to the subprime sector.

7.1 Capital One (COF): The Subprime Giant#

Capital One is the largest subprime credit card lender among the major banks. Its "Information-Based Strategy" relies on collecting high data volumes to price risk for near-prime borrowers.³³

• Exposure: Approximately 30% of Capital One's domestic card portfolio is subprime (FICO < 660).³⁴

• The Discover Merger: Capital One is in the process of acquiring Discover Financial Services. Discover's portfolio is generally higher quality, but the combined entity would hold roughly $257 billion in credit card loans, with a massive exposure to revolving balances.³³

• Impact: A 10% cap neutralizes Capital One's analytical advantage. Data cannot make a 10% loan profitable if the default rate is 12%. Capital One would face the most severe loan contraction of the major banks, likely shrinking its balance sheet by 20-30% to purge unprofitable accounts.³⁵

7.2 Synchrony Financial (SYF): The Existential Threat#

Synchrony is a monoline lender specializing in private-label cards (store cards). These cards typically carry very high APRs (29.99%+) to offset the fact that they are often issued to consumers with thin files or lower credit scores to drive retail sales.²⁸

• Impact: A 10% cap is functionally an extinction event for the current PLCC business model. Synchrony cannot pivot to wealth management like JPM.

• Strategic Trap: Synchrony's contracts with retailers (like Lowe's or Amazon) often contractually obligate them to approve a certain percentage of applicants. If the 10% cap makes those applicants unprofitable, Synchrony is trapped between regulatory losses and contractual penalties. They would likely have to renegotiate every partner agreement, demanding that retailers subsidize the interest cost-a move that would crush retail margins.³⁶

8. Systemic Risks and Conclusion#

8.1 The Shadow Banking Migration#

The most profound consequence of a 10% cap would be the migration of risk from the regulated banking sector to the "shadow" banking sector.

• Predatory Lending: As seen in Arkansas and Illinois, when banks exit, borrowers turn to high-cost alternatives. Payday lenders, pawn shops, and sovereign tribal lenders (who claim immunity from state caps) would see a renaissance.³

• Fintech Disruption: The cap would accelerate the shift toward fintech solutions that monetize via fees or data rather than interest. This includes "Earned Wage Access" (EWA) apps and merchant-subsidized BNPL.

8.2 The "Fee-ification" of Finance#

To survive, the industry will fundamentally change its pricing structure. The era of "free" credit cards (no annual fee) with high rewards (funded by high interest from others) will end. The new model will likely resemble a subscription service:

• Membership Fees: Consumers may pay $10-$20 per month simply to have access to a credit line.

• Transaction Surcharges: The cost of credit will be passed more directly to the merchant, and ultimately the consumer, in the form of higher prices for goods.

8.3 Final Investment Synthesis#

The proposed 10% cap acts as a filter for quality and diversification.

• JPMorgan Chase (JPM): Resilient. A "Hold/Buy." The fortress balance sheet and diversified revenue streams allow it to survive the shock and potentially consolidate market share as weaker competitors fail.

• Visa (V) / Mastercard (MA): Defensive. A "Buy." The shift to debit and continued cross-border growth insulates them from the interest rate shock. They remain the indispensable infrastructure of commerce.

• PayPal (PYPL): Speculative Opportunity. A "Hold." The short-term pain from the Synchrony partnership is real, but the long-term upside from BNPL capturing the displaced credit market is a potent catalyst.

• Capital One (COF) / Synchrony (SYF): High Risk. "Sell/Avoid." These institutions face a structural breakage of their core business models. Until they can demonstrate a viable path to profitability under a 10% cap (likely through massive fee hikes), they are uninvestable for risk-averse capital.

In summary, President Trump's proposal, while politically popular, represents a "structural shock" that would likely achieve the opposite of its stated goal: rather than making credit affordable for the poor, it would make credit unavailable for the poor, while transforming the credit card from a ubiquitous financial tool into a luxury product for the affluent.

Table 1: Summary of Estimated Impact by Institution

Works cited#

1. Trump's Jan. 20 credit card cap: What interest rates could look like?, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/trumps-jan-20-credit-card-cap-what-interest-rates-could-look-like-101768011130361.html

2. Trump calls for cap on US credit card interest rates at 10% for a year, starting January 20-Americans 'being ripped off', accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-one-year-cap-credit-card-interest-rates-of-10-pc-january-20-americans-ripped-off-affordable-us-admin-detail-11768008781234.html

3. 'Devastating for millions…': US banks raise concern over Trump's plan for 10% cap on credit card interest rate, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/devastating-for-millions-us-banks-raise-concern-on-trumps-plan-for-10-cap-on-credit-card-interest-rates-11768061327284.html

4. Trump's 10% Credit Card Rate Cap: Who Wins and Who Takes the Hit?, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/2815801/trumps-10-credit-card-rate-cap-who-wins-and-who-takes-the-hit

5. Trump pushes a 1-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates and banks balk, accessed January 12, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-credit-cards-interest-rates-savings-banks-dba221f122789427c1c625ba873c9b71

6. Trump proposes 10% cap on credit card interest rates from January 20. Details here, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.businesstoday.in/world/us/story/trump-proposes-10-cap-on-credit-card-interest-rates-from-january-20-details-here-510297-2026-01-10

7. Affirm stock jumps 3% as Trump's proposed credit card rate cap sparks shift, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/affirm-stock-jumps-3-as-trumps-proposed-credit-card-rate-cap-sparks-shift-4441904

8. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618

9. Legislative History of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act - farmdoc daily, accessed January 12, 2026, https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/11/legislative-history-of-the-international-emergency-economic-powers-act.html

10. 50 USC Ch. 35: INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS - OLRC Home, accessed January 12, 2026, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter35&edition=prelim

11. Legal Authority for the President to Impose Tariffs Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) | Congress.gov, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11281

12. CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Presidential Authority to Impose Tariffs Under Emergency Powers Law | Constitutional Accountability Center, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/cac-release-supreme-court-considers-presidential-authority-to-impose-tariffs-under-emergency-powers-law/

13. S.2760 - Capping Credit Card Interest Rates Act 118th Congress (2023-2024), accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2760

14. Trump wants to cap credit card rates at 10%. Is that possible?, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/news/credit-card-interest-rate-cap/

15. Why analysts think Trump's 10% credit card fee cap is a low-probability risk, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/why-analysts-think-trumps-10-credit-card-fee-cap-is-a-lowprobability-risk-4441909

16. Rate Caps Statement | American Bankers Association, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.aba.com/about-us/press-room/press-releases/rate-caps-statement

17. Why price controls on credit cards harm consumers - ABA Banking Journal, accessed January 12, 2026, https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2025/02/why-price-controls-on-credit-cards-harm-consumers/

18. Donald Trump proposes 10% credit card interest rate cap for a year - How much would Americans save?, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.livemint.com/economy/donald-trump-calls-10-pc-credit-card-interest-rate-cap-one-year-jan-20-how-much-would-americans-save-us-economy-impact-11768015464515.html

19. Adverse Consequences of the Binding Constitutional Interest Rate Cap in the State of Arkansas | Mercatus Center, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/adverse-consequences-binding-constitutional-interest-rate-cap-state

20. Trump pushes a 1-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates and banks balk - KSAT, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.ksat.com/business/2026/01/10/trump-pushes-a-1-year-10-cap-on-credit-card-interest-rates-and-banks-balk/

21. Legalbet Analysis: Impact of Trump's Proposed 10% Credit-Card Interest Rate Cap on Banking Industry, accessed January 12, 2026, https://mcc-covid.crc.pitt.edu/COVID19_official_websites/Mozambique/moh_situation_reports/2020-05-10_08031589112229.html?y-news-26080148-2026-01-11-legalbet-analysis-trumps-10-percent-rate-cap-impact-on-banking

22. What They Are Saying: Research Shows Interest Rate Caps Harm Consumers, Limit Choice, accessed January 12, 2026, https://consumerbankers.com/press-release/what-they-are-saying-research-shows-interest-rate-caps-harm-consumers-limit-choice/

23. JPMorganChase Reports Third-Quarter 2025 Net Income of $14.4 Billion ($5.07 Per Share), accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/investor-relations/documents/quarterly-earnings/2025/3rd-quarter/f24f154c-2653-4da3-b1b0-185586086d50.pdf

24. Trump Wants to Cap Credit-Card Interest Rates. These Stocks Could Feel the Heat. - Barron's : r/ValueInvesting - Reddit, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/ValueInvesting/comments/1q9rz3d/trump_wants_to_cap_creditcard_interest_rates/

25. Restoring Competition in the Debit Market and Fast-Payment Ecosystem - Yale University Thurman Arnold Project, accessed January 12, 2026, https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-05/2.%20Visa%20-TAP_0.pdf

26. Visa and Mastercard's Q3 2025 insights - FXC Intelligence, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.fxcintel.com/research/analysis/ct-visa-mastercard-q3-25-earnings

27. synchrony bank rates and fees table paypal extras mastercard® account agreement pricing information - files.consumerfinance.gov., accessed January 12, 2026, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/a/assets/credit-card-agreements/pdf/Synchrony_Bank/PayPal_Extras_MasterCard_11.52_Cashback_Account_Agreement_and_Pricing_Information.pdf

28. Account Agreement of PayPal Credit, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.synchronybankterms.com/syfterms/html/PayPalCreditApplyTerms_combo.html

29. PayPal and Synchrony Financial Announce Expanded Strategic Credit Relationship - SEC.gov, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1633917/000119312517345552/d496328dex991.htm

30. 10-K - 02/08/2024 - Synchrony Financial, accessed January 12, 2026, https://investors.synchrony.com/filings-regulatory/sec-filings/quarterly-filings/content/0001601712-24-000047/0001601712-24-000047.pdf

31. rates and fees table paypal credit account agreement pricing information, accessed January 12, 2026, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/a/assets/credit-card-agreements/pdf/Synchrony_Bank/PayPal_Credit_Account_Agreement_and_Pricing_Information.pdf

32. Mizuho: Trump's 10% credit card rate cap could benefit fintech stocks - Investing.com, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.investing.com/news/analyst-ratings/mizuho-trumps-10-credit-card-rate-cap-could-benefit-fintech-stocks-93CH-4441145

33. Capital One-Discover: A Competition Policy and Regulatory Deep Dive, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.economicliberties.us/our-work/capital-one-discover-a-competition-policy-and-regulatory-deep-dive/

34. Morningstar DBRS Confirms Capital One Financial Corporation at A (low); Stable Trend, accessed January 12, 2026, https://dbrs.morningstar.com/research/448335/morningstar-dbrs-confirms-capital-one-financial-corporation-at-a-low-stable-trend

35. Capital One Financial Corp. Outlook Revised To Po | S&P Global Ratings, accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/type/HTML/id/3474566

36. Document - Synchrony Investor, accessed January 12, 2026, https://investors.synchrony.com/filings-regulatory/sec-filings/all-sec-filings/content/0001601712-25-000256/earningsrelease3q25.htm