Connect with us

Business

It may come down to Trump using political pressure to force banks to cap credit card interest rates

Published

on



President Donald Trump a week ago told the credit card industry it had until Jan. 20 to comply with his demand for a 10% cap on interest rates. With just days to go, consumer groups, politicians, and bankers alike remain unclear on what the White House has planned and whether Trump even remains serious about the idea.

So far, the White House has not provided any detail about what will happen to credit card companies that don’t lower card rates. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president has “an expectation” that credit card companies will accede to his demand that they cap interest rates on credit cards at 10%.

“I don’t have a specific consequence to outline for you but certainly this is an expectation and frankly a demand that the president has made,” she said Friday.

A researcher who studied Trump’s proposal when Trump first floated it during the 2024 presidential campaign found that Americans would save roughly $100 billion in interest a year if credit card rates were capped at 10%. The same researchers found that while the credit card industry would take a major hit, it would still be profitable, although credit card rewards and other perks might be scaled back. The administration has amplified that research, posting it on one of the White House’s official Twitter pages.

Bank lobbyists, many who have been spending much of the past week scrambling to figure out what the White House has planned for their industry, have been left in the dark. There have been bills introduced into both houses of Congress by both Republicans and Democrats this year and years past, but House and Senate Republican leadership have been cold to the idea of passing a law capping interest rates.

The Dodd-Frank Act, the law passed after the 2008 financial crisis that overhauled the financial industry, explicitly prohibits at least one federal bank regulator from setting usury limits on loans.

Without a law or executive order, it may simply come down to Trump using political pressure to force the credit card industry to do what he wants, as he’s done with other industries. For example, Trump demanded that pharmaceutical companies cut drug prices, which resulted in some pledges by drug industry CEOs to do what he asked. Trump also demanded chip makers and tech companies move production to the U.S., which also resulted in companies like Apple committing to build more manufacturing capacity domestically.

Wall Street has little interest in an all-out war with the White House, especially as banks have benefitted from the industry-friendly, deregulatory agenda that Trump administration has provided so far. The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed in to law in July, pushed another significant round of tax cuts. And deregulation pushed companies to embrace dealmaking last year, which led to a steady stream of investment banking revenues and fees to the big banks.

When it comes to credit card rates, the messaging out of the bank lobbying groups and bank executives has been two-fold: They have pushed back on the cap but in the same breath have offered to work with the White House.

In a call with reporters on Tuesday, JPMorgan’s Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey Barnum indicated the industry was willing to fight with all resources at its disposal to stop the Trump administration from capping those rates. JPMorgan is one of the nation’s biggest credit card companies. Its customers collectively holding $239.4 billion in balances with the bank, and it has major co-brand partnerships with companies such as United Airlines and Amazon. JPMorgan also recently acquired the Apple Card credit card portfolio from Goldman Sachs.

Mark Mason, Citigroup’s chief financial officer, told reporters on Wednesday that a cap “is not something we could or would support,” saying it would restrict credit to consumers and harm the economy. But at the same time, Mason said, “Affordability is a big issue, and we look forward to collaborating with the administration on ways we can address this.”

Trump took further aim at the card industry when he endorsed a bill in Congress that could negatively impact the amount of money banks earn from merchants every time a customer swipes their card.

Not all companies are waiting for Trump’s next move.

Fintech company Bilt launched a new set of credit cards this week and said it would cap customers’ interest rates at 10% on new purchases for a year. While effectively a promotional rate that other credit card companies have used in the past, Bilt’s move could provide an example of how the credit card industry can meet the White House’s demands without fundamentally destroying their business model.

“If (a credit card rate cap) is going to happen, we’d rather be at the forefront,” Ankur Jain, Bilt’s CEO, said in an interview earlier this week.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

There’s broad bipartisan support to renew Obamacare subsidies, but abortion issue could block a deal

Published

on



Despite significant progress, bipartisan Senate negotiations on the subsidies seemed to be near collapse at the end of the week as the abortion dispute appears intractable.

“Once we get past this issue, there’s decent agreement on everything else,” Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, who has led the talks, told reporters.

But movement was hard to find.

Republicans were seeking stronger curbs on abortion coverage for those who purchase insurance off the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act. Democrats strongly opposed any such changes, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade in 2022. And advocacy groups on both sides were pushing against any compromise that they believe would weaken their positions.

The impasse was a familiar obstacle for lawmakers who have been arguing over the health law, known widely as “Obamacare,” since it was passed 16 years ago.

“The two sides are passionate about (abortion) so I think if they can find a way to bring it up, they probably will,” said Ivette Gomez, a senior policy analyst on women’s health policy for KFF, the health care research nonprofit.

A fight with a long history

The abortion dispute dates back to the weeks and months before President Barack Obama signed the health overhaul into law in 2010, when Democrats who controlled Congress added provisions ensuring that federal dollars subsidizing the health plans would not pay for elective abortions. The compromise came after negotiations with members of their own party whose opposition to abortion rights threatened to sink the legislation.

The final language allowed states to offer plans under the ACA that cover elective abortions, but said that federal money could not pay for them. States are now required to segregate funding for those procedures.

Since then, 25 states have passed laws prohibiting abortion coverage in ACA plans, 12 have passed laws requiring abortion coverage in the plans and 13 states and the District of Columbia have no coverage limitations or requirements, according to KFF. Some Republicans and anti-abortion groups now want to make it harder for the states that require or allow the coverage, arguing that the segregated funds are nothing more than a gimmick that allows taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.

Senators involved in the negotiations said a potential compromise was to investigate some of those states to ensure that they are segregating the money correctly.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who has led the negotiations with Moreno, said “the answer is to audit” those states and enforce the law if they are not properly segregating their funds.

But that plan was unlikely to win unanimity from Republicans, and Democrats have not signed on.

Trump weighs in

Negotiators were more optimistic last week, after President Donald Trump told House Republicans at a meeting that “you have to be a little flexible” on rules that federal dollars cannot be used for abortions.

Those words from the president, who has said little about whether he wants Congress to extend the subsidies, came just before a House vote on Democratic legislation that would extend the ACA tax credits for three years. After his comments, 17 Republicans voted with Democrats on the extension over the objections of GOP leadership and the House passed the bill with no new abortion restrictions.

Anti-abortion groups reacted swiftly.

Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the group would not be supporting the 17 Republicans who voted for the extension. Trump’s comments were “a complete change in position for him” that brought “a lot of backlash and outcry” from the anti-abortion movement and voters opposed to abortion rights, she said.

Those who did not support changes to the ACA to reduce abortion coverage “are going to pay the price in the midterms” this year, Pritchard said. “We’re communicating to them that this isn’t acceptable.”

‘Zero appetite’ for changes

Democrats say the Republican effort to amend the law and increase restrictions on abortion is a distraction. They have been focused on extending the COVID-era subsidies that expired on Jan. 1 and had kept costs down for millions of people in the United States. The average subsidized enrollee is facing more than double the monthly premium costs for 2026, also according to KFF.

The two sides have been haggling since the fall, when Democrats voted to shut down the government for 43 days as they demanded negotiations on extending the subsidies. Republicans refused to negotiate until a small group of moderate Democrats agreed to vote with them and end the shutdown.

After the shutdown ended, Republicans made clear that they would not budge on the subsidies without changes on abortion, and the Senate voted on and rejected a three-year extension of the tax credits.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said at the time that making it harder to cover abortion was a “red line” for Democrats.

Republicans are going to “own these increases” in premiums, King said then.

The bipartisan group that has met in recent weeks has closed in on parts of an agreement, including a two-year deal that would extend the enhanced subsidy while adding new limits and also creating the option, in the second year, of a health savings account that Trump and Republicans prefer. The ACA open enrollment period would be extended to March 1 of this year, to allow people more time to figure out their coverage plans after the interruption of the enhanced subsidy.

But the abortion issue continues to stand in the way of a deal as Democrats seek to protect the carefully crafted compromise that helped pass the ACA 16 years ago.

“I have zero appetite to make it harder for people to access abortions,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The creator economy may be bigger than we think, and taxing side hustles will be a growing issue as an OnlyFans ‘sin tax’ is debated

Published

on



Fiscal authorities and statisticians have long underestimated different types of economic activity, and side hustles are no different, according to Paul Donovan, chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management.

In a Financial Times op-ed late last month, he pointed to a major milestone in the creator economy: an analysis from WPP Media indicated that creator-generated content would fetch the same share of global ad revenue as the radio and newspaper industries would in 2025.

“Advertising revenues are not flowing to traditional platforms,” Donovan wrote. “To get a message across in the modern world, you need to find a 15-year-old with a smartphone and a nice set of dance moves.”

While some influencers can make a living solely from their online content, most creators are more likely earning supplementary income, he said.

But a wider pool of people can tap into this business. For example, more musicians can now make money by putting out their music on streaming services, which bypass record labels that historically acted as gatekeepers. 

“Online marketplaces abound, allowing anyone who thinks they have something to sell to find a customer without any of the expense of having to rent a physical shop,” Donovan explained.

But the economic impact is tricky to measure, as “social media influencer” isn’t an occupation tracked in labor force surveys, he added.

In fact, there has been a tendency to under-report growth due in part to such failures at measuring certain economic output.

In the case of the creator economy, the predominance of e-commerce means side-hustlers enjoy a huge potential market and minimal fixed costs. But data gatherers that follow large stores more than small online sellers lowball total consumer spending.

“The side hustle has economic value, but the work is rarely recognized,” Donovan said.

On the flip side, measuring the amount of hours a creator spends on labor may be even trickier than tracking their sales, he noted. That could skew productivity data.

Another issue is how to tax side-hustle revenue, which is a growing problem for many fiscal authorities. Because the effort required to tax every small business can cost more than the revenue generated, sole proprietorships can often claim tax exemptions for some of their income.

“But as with the rethinking of small package tariff exemptions, fiscal authorities might have to reassess the tax-free allowances of the side hustle,” he warned.

This issue has actually come up recently in Florida, where a Republican candidate for governor has proposed a 50% “sin tax” on OnlyFans creators to fight “cultural degeneracy” and discourage young women from selling nude photos of themselves.

That drew the ire of content creator Sophie Rain, who told People magazine it was the “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.”

“No one ever forced me to start an OnlyFans, it was MY decision, so I don’t need a 31-year-old man telling me I can’t sell my body online,” she said. “I am a Christian, God knows what I am doing, and I know He is happy with me. That’s the only validation I need.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump wants nations to pay $1 billion to stay on his peace board

Published

on



The Trump administration is asking countries that want a permanent spot on his new Board of Peace to contribute at least $1 billion.

According to a draft charter for the proposed group seen by Bloomberg, President Donald Trump would serve as its inaugural chairman and would decide on who is invited to be members. Decisions would be taken by a majority, with each member state present getting one vote, but all would be subject to the chairman’s approval.

“Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force,” the draft says.

Critics are worried that Trump is trying to build an alternative, or rival, to the United Nations, which he has long criticized.

The board is described in the charter as “an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” It would become official once three member states agree to the charter.

Trump would also be responsible for approving the group’s official seal, the document says.

White House officials didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment. 

Trump has invited a number of world leaders, including Argentina’s Javier Milei and Canada’s Mark Carney, to be part of a Board of Peace for Gaza, which would be formed under the broader umbrella of his new Board of Peace.

That plan attracted swift criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the details hadn’t been coordinated with his country.

Read More: Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ Takes Shape as Israel Raises Concern

Several European nations have been invited to join the peace board, according to people familiar with the matter. The draft appears to suggest Trump himself would control the money, something that would be considered unacceptable to most countries who could have potentially joined the board, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private matters.

Several nations strongly oppose the draft of Trump’s charter and are working on collectively pushing back against the proposals, the people added.

The Board of Peace would convene voting meetings at least annually and “at such additional times and locations as the Chairman deems appropriate,” the draft charter says. The agenda would be subject to approval by the chairman. The peace board would hold regular non-voting meetings with its executive board. Such meetings would be convened on at least a quarterly basis.

Read More: Trump Pulls US From 31 Bodies in UN, Already in Fiscal Peril

Trump would also have the power to remove a member, subject to a veto by a two-thirds majority of member states. “The Chairman shall at all times designate a successor for the role of Chairman,” the charter says.

On Friday, the White House announced a first executive panel that would include Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair before the formation of the overall board.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.