How A 10% Credit Cap Would Crush The Economy

The proposal by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Anna Paulina Luna to cap credit card interest rates at 10% may seem, at first glance, like an act of consumer protection. It is anything but. In reality, this policy would devastate the very people it claims to help by cutting off access to credit, stifling consumer spending, and setting off a ripple effect of economic consequences. The unintended damage would be far-reaching, leaving millions of Americans without credit and exacerbating economic inequality. What appears to be a populist reform is, in fact, a reckless intervention in the financial sector that ignores basic economic principles and historical precedent.

The fundamental flaw of this proposal is its misunderstanding of risk pricing. Credit card companies determine interest rates based on the likelihood of repayment. Subprime borrowers—those with lower credit scores—pose a greater risk, and their interest rates reflect this. By arbitrarily capping interest rates at 10%, the government would render these loans unprofitable for banks and credit card companies. As a result, these companies would either stop offering credit to higher-risk individuals or introduce new fees to offset losses, making credit cards less accessible and more expensive in different ways.

Historical evidence supports this conclusion. In countries where similar caps have been imposed, the consequences were severe. In Chile, for instance, lowering interest rate caps led to a 19% reduction in available loans. A similar trend occurred in the U.S. before the 1978 Supreme Court decision (Marquette v. First of Omaha), when strict usury laws led banks to avoid lending to certain states altogether, limiting credit access and pushing consumers toward unregulated and often predatory financial alternatives.

The most vulnerable borrowers—those with FICO scores below 600—would bear the brunt of this policy. Research indicates that roughly 20% of Americans fall into this category, meaning as many as 80 million consumers would lose access to credit cards. For these individuals, credit is often a lifeline. It enables them to manage unexpected expenses, such as medical bills or car repairs and to bridge short-term financial gaps. Removing this lifeline would force them to turn to payday lenders, pawnshops and other high-risk borrowing methods that often charge effective interest rates far exceeding even the highest current credit card rates.

Even consumers with excellent credit scores, who currently pay rates averaging 13.5%, would see disruptions. While it might be theoretically possible for lenders to absorb a 3.5% reduction for this segment, the broader loss of revenue would likely lead to tightened credit availability across the board. Banks would respond by imposing stricter eligibility requirements, cutting rewards programs, increasing fees or pulling back on lending altogether. Thus, the negative effects would cascade through all sectors of the credit market, not just those directly impacted by the cap.

The economic consequences of restricting credit availability extend beyond individual borrowers. Consumer spending, which drives nearly 70% of the U.S. economy, relies heavily on the accessibility of credit. When millions of Americans suddenly find themselves unable to borrow, spending contracts. Businesses see reduced sales, layoffs increase and economic growth slows.

Moreover, a restriction on credit would particularly harm small businesses, many of which rely on personal credit cards for capital. Entrepreneurs often use credit cards to finance new ventures or cover short-term expenses. By capping rates at an arbitrary 10%, the government would be pulling the rug out from under these businesses, stifling innovation and economic dynamism.

If the goal is to reduce consumer financial burdens, there are far more effective approaches than a crude cap on interest rates. Financial education initiatives could help consumers better manage credit and avoid debt traps. Regulatory reforms could promote greater competition among credit card issuers, encouraging lower rates through market forces rather than blunt-force government intervention. Expanding access to alternative credit models, such as responsible lending programs or expanded secured credit options, could also provide relief without depriving millions of Americans of access to traditional credit.

Even modest regulatory adjustments—such as requiring clearer disclosures of interest rates and fees or implementing targeted protections against predatory lending—would be far less damaging than an outright cap. These alternatives acknowledge the complexity of the financial system rather than attempting to dictate economic outcomes through oversimplified and destructive mandates.

The proposal by AOC and Luna to cap credit card interest rates at 10% is an economic disaster in the making. It ignores fundamental market principles, disregards historical precedent, and would inflict severe harm on the very people it claims to protect. By making credit unprofitable for lenders, the bill would deprive millions of Americans of access to credit, reduce consumer spending, and cripple economic growth.

Populist economic policies often sound appealing in theory, but their real-world effects can be devastating. If policymakers truly wish to assist consumers, they should focus on promoting financial literacy, fostering competition and encouraging responsible lending—not imposing arbitrary caps that will only push borrowers into worse financial situations. The path to economic prosperity is not through heavy-handed intervention but through policies that expand opportunity, rather than restrict it.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Democrat Darling Reveals HUGE Senate Decision