While the 10% cap is a massive populist play, it is deeply intertwined with what Trump calls his "War on Debanking."
He has explicitly linked his frustration with the financial system to his family’s personal experiences. In August 2025, he signed the "Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans" Executive Order, which was a direct response to these grievances.
Trump and his allies have frequently cited specific instances to justify this "war":
The "Blacklist": Trump has claimed that his family has been blacklisted by at least a dozen financial institutions since 2021.
Family Impact: His administration has publicized that Melania Trump’s credit card was denied and that Barron Trump was allegedly refused a bank account.
Business Closures: In early 2025, the Trump Revocable Trust sued Capital One, alleging the bank closed hundreds of accounts tied to his businesses without cause.
By framing the 10% cap and the debanking EO together, the agenda becomes two-pronged:
The "Stick": The 10% cap is the "stick" used to beat the large banks (like JPMorgan Chase and Capital One) that he feels targeted him. If the cap makes their credit card business unprofitable, it is a form of regulatory "revenge."
The "Shield": The debanking EO forces regulators to stop using "Reputational Risk" as a reason to close accounts. This effectively prevents banks from firing clients (like him or his supporters) just because of political blowback.
This is where the strategy gets sophisticated. By declaring "war" on banks for "debanking" him, he achieves three things at once:
The Victim Narrative: He portrays himself as a victim of the "Deep State" and "Woke Wall Street," which resonates with his base.
The Populist Hero: By adding the 10% cap to the "war," he makes his personal grievance look like a fight for everyone’s wallet. It’s hard to call it "personal revenge" when he’s promising to lower everyone’s interest rates.
The Regulatory Override: He is using his executive power to dismantle the very tools (like the CFPB's late fee caps, which he initially rolled back) and then replacing them with his own more aggressive, albeit legally shaky, 10% cap.
Banks are now in a "lose-lose" position. If they fight the debanking EO, they look like they want to discriminate. If they fight the 10% cap, they look like they are "gouging" the American people.
Trump is essentially using the banks as a political foil for the 2026 midterms—giving voters a clear "villain" to blame for high costs and "unfair" treatment.
While the 10% cap is a massive populist play, it is deeply intertwined with what Trump calls his "War on Debanking."
He has explicitly linked his frustration with the financial system to his family’s personal experiences. In August 2025, he signed the "Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans" Executive Order, which was a direct response to these grievances.
1. The Personal Motivation1. The Personal Motivation
Trump and his allies have frequently cited specific instances to justify this "war":
2. The "Hidden Agenda": Retaliation vs. Reform2. The "Hidden Agenda": Retaliation vs. Reform
By framing the 10% cap and the debanking EO together, the agenda becomes two-pronged:
3. Why it's a "Clever" Political Trap3. Why it's a "Clever" Political Trap
This is where the strategy gets sophisticated. By declaring "war" on banks for "debanking" him, he achieves three things at once:
4. The Counter-Move4. The Counter-Move
Banks are now in a "lose-lose" position. If they fight the debanking EO, they look like they want to discriminate. If they fight the 10% cap, they look like they are "gouging" the American people.
Trump is essentially using the banks as a political foil for the 2026 midterms—giving voters a clear "villain" to blame for high costs and "unfair" treatment.