credit

Jan. 10 (UPI) — If President Donald Trump has his way, credit card companies will limit their respective interest rates to no more than 10% for a year to make them more affordable.

Trump took to social media to call on all credit card companies to voluntarily lower their interest rates for one year, starting this month, to promote affordability.

“Please be informed that we will no longer let the American public be ‘ripped off’ by credit card companies that are charging interest rates of 20 to 30%, and even more, which festered unimpeded during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Friday.

“AFFORDABILITY! Effective January 20, 2026, I, as president of the United States, am calling for a one-year cap on credit card Interest Rates of 10%,” he said, adding that Jan. 20 is the one-year anniversary of his second term in office.

The Federal Reserve reported a record-high average annual percentage rate of nearly 23% and rising in 2023, the now-defunct Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said.

That’s up from an average APR of 16.4% in 2021 and 20.4% in 2022, according to the Federal Reserve.

While the average APR rate rose significantly under the Biden administration, Trump last year eliminated the Biden administration policy that limited credit card fees to no more than $8.

The average fee previously was $32 for late credit card payments and other fee-triggering activities.

NEW YORK — Reviving a campaign pledge, President Trump wants a one-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a move that could save Americans tens of billions of dollars but drew immediate opposition from an industry that has been in his corner.

Trump was not clear in his social media post Friday night whether a cap might take effect through executive action or legislation, though one Republican senator said he had spoken with the president and would work on a bill with his “full support.” Trump said he hoped it would be in place by Jan. 20, marking one year since his return to the White House.

Strong opposition is certain from Wall Street and the credit card companies, which donated heavily to his 2024 campaign and to support his second-term agenda.

“We will no longer let the American Public be ripped off by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Researchers who studied Trump’s campaign pledge after it was first announced 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.

Americans are paying, on average, between 19.65% and 21.5% in interest on credit cards, according to the Federal Reserve and other industry tracking sources. That has come down in the last year as the central bank lowered benchmark rates, but is near the highs since federal regulators started tracking credit card rates in the mid-1990s.

Trump’s administration, however, has proved particularly friendly until now to the credit card industry.

Capital One got little resistance from the White House when it finalized its purchase and merger with Discover Financial in early 2025, a deal that created the nation’s largest credit card company. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is largely tasked with going after credit card companies for alleged wrongdoing, has been largely nonfunctional since Trump took office. His administration killed a Biden-era regulation that would have capped credit card late fees.

In a joint statement, the banking industry opposed Trump’s proposal.

“If enacted, this cap would only drive consumers toward less regulated, more costly alternatives,” the American Bankers Assn. and allied groups said.

The White House did not respond to questions about how the president seeks to cap the rate or whether he has spoken with credit card companies about the idea.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who said he talked with Trump on Friday night, said the effort is meant to “lower costs for American families and to [rein] in greedy credit card companies who have been ripping off hardworking Americans for too long.”

Legislation in both the House and the Senate would do what Trump is seeking.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) released a plan last February that would immediately cap interest rates at 10% for five years, hoping to use Trump’s campaign promise to build momentum for their measure.

Hours before Trump’s post, Sanders noted that the president, rather than working to cap interest rates, had taken steps to deregulate big banks that allowed them to charge much higher credit card fees.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) have proposed similar legislation. Ocasio-Cortez is a frequent political target of Trump, while Luna is a close ally of the president.

Sweet and Kim write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and West Palm Beach, Fla., respectively.

Jan. 8 (UPI) — Seventeen House Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues Thursday evening to pass legislation that extends Affordable Care Act premium tax credits for three years.

The House lawmakers voted 230-196 in favor of House Bill 1834, known as Breaking the Gridlock Act, sending it to the Senate where passage is anything but assured. The Senate already shot down the proposal last month. President Donald Trump would also have to sign it.

“We did it!” Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., said in a recorded statement following the bill’s passing.

“And, honestly, I’m just a little bit hopeful that we might be able to get this across the finish line and save our healthcare.”

Affordable Care Act premium tax credits have greatly reduced the costs of healthcare coverage for more than 20 million people annually. The tax credits expired at the turn of the new year, setting the stage for premiums to double for millions of people.

Debate over how to address the expiration of premium tax credits was a key point of contention during the record 43-day government shutdown that ensued in October.

Nine Republicans broke from party leadership on Wednesday to join Democrats in forcing a vote on the House floor with a rarely used discharge petition after House Republicans prevented it from moving forward. Only four Republicans pushed for a floor vote last month when lawmakers tried to pass an extension before the end-of-year deadline.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who had expected the extension to pass, applauded his party for standing strong on their months-long commitment to “fix our broken healthcare system and address the Republican healthcare crisis, beginning with the extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

To reporters after the vote, Jeffries called on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to “immediately” bring the bill up for a vote and “stop playing procedural games that are jeopardizing the health, the safety and the well-being of the American people.”

Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr. of Pennsylvania was one of the 14 Republicans to vote “yes” to H.B. 1834. In a statement, the junior House member criticized the Affordable Care Act, which is frequently called Obamacare, for allegedly failing to deliver on its promise to lower insurance costs.

“But the only thing worse than a three-year extension of these credits is to let them expire with no solution or off-ramp,” he said.

“I voted for this because, as of right now, it is the only path forward that keeps discussion alive to protect the 28,000 people in my district from immediate premium spikes.”

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., is among the Republicans who supported voting on an extension last month. He said ahead of the vote that House members have been working with members of the Senate on a proposal that could pass through with reforms.

“We’ve been working with senators for weeks,” Lawler said. “I think that’s ultimately where we can get.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday previewed a major education system overhaul that would give the next governor more authority over state school policies and redefine — and almost certainly diminish — the role of the elected state superintendent of public instruction.

The governor’s office indicated Thursday that major portions of the proposal, to be included in the state budget plan Friday, are based on a December 2025 report from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), a nonpartisan center that brings together researchers from Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Davis and USC.

The central aspect of the PACE plan calls for removing the state superintendent as the head of the California Department of Education. Instead, that department would be run by an appointee of the state Board of Education. Members of the state board are appointed by the governor to fixed four-year terms.

The PACE report envisions the “governor as the chief architect and steward responsible for aligning and advancing California’s education system.” According to the report, the “governor could develop long-term plans and use the budget as a strategic lever to advance them.”

A release from the governor’s office asserted that the state’s education system operates as “a fragmented set of entities with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of educational services offered to students.”

This education initiative, if approved by the Legislature, could prove a defining element of Newsom’s education agenda for his last year in office. He would not get to exercise these new powers, which would fall to his successor.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond immediately raised concerns, while also praising Newsom’s record on education.

“Gov. Newsom has done an incredible job on education, one of the best governors we’ve had on education … and I think we have been more aligned than any state superintendent and governor in recent times,” said Thurmond, who is running to succeed Newsom as governor. “On this one issue, I don’t think we could be more misaligned.”

Here are the details and why Newsom wants to move forward with this plan.

Who controls what happens in California’s schools?

Authority over education is distributed among different officeholders.

The Legislature passes laws related to education. The governor chooses which to sign. The governor also proposes what to pay for in education through his budget plan. The Legislature can amend the plan and has the responsibility to approve it.

The elected state superintendent runs the state Department of Education and serves as the administrative lead for the state Board of Education. The superintendent does not have a vote on the board. In some areas, he answers to the authority of the state board; in others, he does not.

The governor appoints the state board, which approves the wording of state education policies. The board also approves curriculum and grants waivers to school districts seeking exemptions from state rules.

What is the problem Newsom says he is trying to fix?

The PACE report says the system is too complicated. It’s not clear who is in charge of what and who is accountable for results.

This has not stopped state officials from taking credit for positive developments or favored policies. Both Newsom and Thurmond take credit for creating the new grade of transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds and for providing two meals at school each day for all students.

Both had a role in supporting and executing that policy, although neither would have happened without Newsom’s favor.

Some parts of the education system are not faring so well. Statewide student test scores and absenteeism rates — although improving — are worse than in 2018-19, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Fewer than half of California students meet state standards in English language arts and math.

As part of its work, the PACE research team conducted interviews with 16 former and current policymakers, researchers and education leaders. Collectively they rated the performance of the state’s education system somewhere between fair and poor when it comes to strategic thinking, accountability, capacity, knowledge governance, stakeholder involvement and systemwide perspective.

What would the state superintendent do under the Newsom plan?

A news release from the governor said his plan would “expand and strengthen the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s ability to foster coordination and alignment of state education policies from early childhood through post-secondary education.”

Thurmond is not persuaded, based on his review of the PACE report, which would take the Department of Education away from the superintendent.

That report reimagines that state superintendent as a student “champion” who would analyze and report on the effectiveness of the state education system and also take on an advocacy role.

The PACE analysts noted that the Legislature would need to provide funding and staffing for the superintendent, in this new role, to be effective. Thurmond said that even under the current structure, underfunding of the state Education Department limits its effectiveness.

Thurmond said it would make more sense to give the elected state schools leader more authority over education spending and more resources, given that individual’s specific focus on education.

Why not just eliminate the elected state superintendent?

The state’s voters have rejected that option in the past. So have the powerful teachers unions, which have seen the office as a check on the governor’s power and an outpost in which they could campaign to install an ally.

How does this play out politically?

Newsom has taken credit for much in education, including career and mentoring programs, funding for teacher training and expanded community schools, which serve the broader needs of an entire family.

“Just this year, we’ve seen improved academic achievement in every subject area, in every grade level, in every student group,” Newsom said in his prepared State of the State remarks, “with greater gains in test scores for Black and Latino kids.”

He also took credit for state education spending per student at the highest level to date.

But he or his representatives have, at times, distanced himself from Department of Education guidelines that have expanded the rights of transgender students, including, for example, the right of transgender students to play on girls’ sports teams.

California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond has concerns about Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to change how the state’s schools are managed.

(Josh Edelson/For The Times)

Under the proposed system, a future governor would be more accountable for these and other policies.

Thurmond said that Newsom’s positive record proves that the governor already is the most powerful official in the state when it comes to education — and that more power does not need to be concentrated in that office.

What is the governance model in other states?

If California were to adopt a model in which the state board appoints the head of the Education Department, “it would align with the plurality of states that follow this governance approach,” the PACE report states.

In 20 states, including Massachusetts, New York, Florida and Mississippi, state boards of education directly appoint their chief state school officers. Twelve states, including California, select their chief state school officer through direct election.

Thurmond countered that even in some states with an appointed superintendent, the role has more authority than the elected superintendent in California.

SACRAMENTO — A California lawmaker introduced a bill Monday to crack down on fake liens filed against politicians, court employees and businesses that can force victims to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear their names and repair their credit.

The bill by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) comes after a Times investigation in July found lien claims filed with the secretary of state’s office are used by antigovernment agitators, including so-called “sovereign citizens,” for conspiracy-laced demands and vendettas. The U.S. Justice Department and the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service have called fake liens a form of “paper terrorism.”

“This isn’t an exotic or onerous fix,” Papan said Monday after the state Legislature returned to the Capitol to begin a new session. “The fact is that someone can do irreparable damage to someone’s reputation and their ability to have good credit. And we can certainly do better in California.”

Liens are recorded in state Uniform Commercial Code databases across the country, with the public filings intended to standardize interstate transactions and alert creditors about business debts and financial obligations.

The Times’ investigation found that state databases of UCC liens, which were designed to be straightforward and quick to file, are inherently vulnerable to abuse. A single false filing can claim an individual or business owes debts worth hundreds of millions or even trillions of dollars. Others flood victims with repeated filings that make it appear they are entangled in complex financial disputes.

In California, a lien recorded with the secretary of state costs $5 to file, but removing a fraudulent one from the public database requires a court order, which can cost thousands in attorney and court fees. The state does not notify a person when a lien names them as the debtor, allowing fake filings to remain in California’s public database for years before a victim discovers them. Many politicians and government employees learned from The Times that they had been targeted with spurious filings.

Under Assembly Bill 501, the secretary of state’s office would be required to notify individuals within 21 days if they are named as a debtor in a lien filing. The legislation also would delay court fees until the end of judicial proceedings.

In cases where the lien is found to be fraudulent, the bill would make the guilty party liable to the victim for three times the amount of court fees paid. The bill would also increase the maximum civil penalty for filing a fraudulent lien to $15,000, up from $5,000. California law already makes it a felony to knowingly file a fake lien.

“Victims of these fraudulent filings often have no idea they’ve been targeted until real harm is done,” Papan said. “That harm can look like wrecked credit, failed background checks, or failed mortgage applications while the people committing the fraud face relatively little risk or consequence.”

The National Assn. of Secretaries of State said the vast majority of UCC filings are legitimate. But, in a 2023 report, the association said that “fraudulent or bogus filings” were a widespread and persistent problem across the country, warning that they “can create serious financial difficulties for victims.”

One high-profile California public official who was unaware he had been named in a UCC claim until contacted by The Times said he was alarmed to find that the filing contained his home address. The Times identified hundreds of other UCC filings with no apparent legal basis that also listed the home addresses of government officials and prominent power-brokers, effectively turning the state’s public database into a doxing tool.

In the debt claims, individuals falsely allege government officials owe them money or property, in some cases claiming ownership of the victim’s home. Other fake filings target businesses with claims of being owed cash and cars. In some cases, individuals file dozens or hundreds of fake liens. Paid online classes associated with fringe antigovernment ideologies teach people how to record UCC liens, often promoting the filings as a way to pressure perceived adversaries or falsely claiming that the filings can erase debts.

Michael Rogers, a San Diego attorney who represents auto dealers targeted by fake filings, said AB 501 would “greatly curb some of the systemic abuses used by the sovereign citizen movement and others” who file unsupported or fraudulent lien notices.

Consumer credit expert John Ulzheimer said in July that liens can complicate a person’s ability to obtain a mortgage or a company’s chances of securing lines of credit. In some cases, he said, the filings can derail job applications for positions that require thorough background checks.

Papan said her bill would restore “balance and accountability” to the UCC system, ensuring it remains a trusted commercial tool while adding protections for Californians targeted by fraudulent filings.

“We can’t allow the Uniform Commercial Code to be used as a weapon,” Papan said. “The fact that these forms are being used to damage the integrity of commercial transactions is very troubling.”

The Offensive Most Valuable Player of the Rose Bowl game easily could have gone to Heisman Trophy winner Fernando Mendoza. The Indiana quarterback finished the game with more touchdown passes than incompletions , threw for 192 yards and spread the ball to three teammates on scoring plays during their 38-3 rout of Alabama.

Instead, the sportswriters and broadcasters awarded center Pat Coogan and the rest of the offensive line. After it was announced, the biggest celebration came from Mendoza, who jumped with excitement, smiled from ear to ear and pumped his fist as he swarmed his center with the rest of his teammates.

Just another assist from a leader.

“We work really hard every single day because not only do we enjoy football, we also enjoy winning,” said Mendoza, who completed 14 of 16 passes. “And we know what that takes. So every single day we’re always going to put our best foot forward.”

Coogan was the first offensive lineman to win the award since Norm Verry won it for USC in 1944.

“It’s all a credit to my teammates and my coaching staff for just believing in me and the ability to make my calls and diagnose a defense and fully entrusting in me and my abilities,” Coogan said.

Against the Crimson Tide, Indiana had its love for the game fully displayed on both sides of the field. The defense held Alabama to a field goal and 23 rushing yards while forcing two fumbles and recovering one.

The crucial recovery came as the Tide approached Hoosiers territory as the second quarter was coming to a close. With Indiana ahead 10-0, Alabama quarterback Ty Simpson ran on third and seven toward Indiana’s 40-yard line. Instead of gaining a first down, Simpson fumbled on a hit by Hoosiers cornerback D’Angelo Ponds. On its next drive, Indiana scored to make it 17-0.

Ponds earned the Defensive MVP award for his pivotal hit and thanked defensive coordinator Bryant Haines for their preparation.

“He did a good job scheming [Alabama],” Ponds said. “He knew what they liked to run, their tendencies and stuff like that.”

The coaching staff set the standards for Indiana and it all started with head coach Curt Cignetti, Coogan said.

“The complacency factor, the [fear] to death of complacency, the never-ending journey of improving, taking it day-to-day, taking each day as the most important day in the history of the program,” he said. “It all starts with [Cignetti], and he makes sure all of our eyes are focused forward and we’re all thinking alike as he always says.”

Cignetti called the game a great team victory for Indiana against an opponent with great tradition and history, but there’s still football to be played.

Up next, the Hoosiers go up against Oregon at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta on Jan. 9. This will be the Big Ten teams’ second meeting this season.

“Good to have another rematch against Dante Moore and a great Oregon team next week,” Mendoza said.

It’ll be the third time Mendoza faces the Oregon quarterback. The first time they met was in 2023 at the Rose Bowl, when they played for Cal and UCLA, respectively. Mendoza came out victorious 33-7.

In October, they matched up again, this time with their current teams. Again, the Hoosiers quarterback came out on top, 30-20.

But can lightning strike twice in a season?

“It’s very hard to beat a really good football team twice,” Cignetti said. “There’s no doubt about that.”

Indiana will take its unblemished record to Atlanta to face Oregon and hope the Hoosiers’ chemistry carries them to Miami Gardens for a shot at the national championship.

“We are efficient because we have good players with high character,” Cignetti said. “They’re great team guys and really good leaders, and they listen and they buy in.”

WASHINGTON — President Reagan signed the Farm Credit System rescue bill with misgivings Wednesday, saying that some provisions foster a tendency to put federal props under the agricultural economy.

Although finding fault with some aspects of the legislation to bail out as much as $4 billion in federally guaranteed bonds for the debt-ridden credit system, Reagan said the measure “ensures that the farm credit system will continue as a principal source of private credit to America’s farmers.”

During a bill-signing ceremony in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, the President said also that the legislation “implements many needed reforms to the system to ensure its long-term viability.”

Reagan painted a generally rosy picture of farming in his remarks but said that “many of America’s farmers are still suffering from the aftershocks of the runaway inflation of the ‘70s.”

$4.8 Billion in Losses

The Farm Credit System is a 70-year-old network of 37 banks and hundreds of local lending co-ops. It provides credit to one-third of the nation’s farm borrowers but has registered losses of $4.8 billion over the last two years.

The system’s problems are generally blamed on the crisis that swept rural America in the early 1980s, when land values plunged in the wake of falling crop prices and farmers were saddled with long-term loans at high interest rates.

Reagan used the bill-signing ceremony to criticize some provisions that he said encourage continued reliance by farmers on federal aid and are too expensive.

“Unfortunately, the Congress declined to require the system to provide as much self-help as we believe was appropriate and created new and potentially expensive federal support mechanisms for secondary markets for private sector agricultural loans,” he said.

The bill is expected to cost taxpayers up to $1.5 billion over five years. The Treasury eventually could have to pay the whole $4 billion plus interest if the system folds despite the rescue effort, but that is considered unlikely.

Pat Finn, a veteran comedy actor known for playing the Heck family’s friendly neighbor Bill Norwood on “The Middle,” died Monday, reportedly following a three-year battle with cancer. He was 60.

“After a beautiful life filled with laughter, love, family, and friends, we share the heartbreaking news of the death of Pat Finn,” Finn’s family said in a statement to multiple outlets. Finn’s manager, Andrea Pett-Joseph, who described the actor as “the kindest, most joyful person in any room, told Deadline that he died surrounded by his family and friends. His death was first reported by TMZ.

Finn broke into show business in the 1990s, appearing in various sitcoms. His first major role was on “The George Wendt Show,” where he played Dan Coleman, the brother of Wendt’s character, George Coleman. He also had a recurring role on “Murphy Brown” as Phil Jr., the son of the original owner and bartender of Phil’s Bar (portrayed by Pat Corley) who took over the establishment in later seasons.

”Seinfeld” fans might remember Finn from his role as Joe Mayo in “The Reverse Peephole” episode. He also portrayed alternate-universe Monica’s boyfriend Dr. Roger in a couple of episodes of “Friends.” Finn’s credits also included roles on “The Drew Carey Show,” “3rd Rock From the Sun,” “That ’70s Show,” “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” “The Bernie Mac Show,” “2 Broke Girls” and “The Goldbergs.” His most recent credits included the films “Unexpected” (2023) and “Diamond in the Rough” (2022).

Born in Evanston, Ill., Finn attended Marquette University in the 1980s, where he met his future wife, Donna, and Chris Farley, with whom he became friends. After graduating, Finn, along with Farley, joined Chicago’s Second City to hone his comedy chops.

In a 2022 interview published on Phoenix.org, Finn said he’d always gravitated toward comedy.

“My mom and I watched ‘The Carol Burnett Show’ and ‘The Odd Couple,’” he said. “I really liked the idea of sitcoms. Growing up in Chicago, nobody said they wanted to be an actor. They wanted to be firefighters or in sales. … A career in comedy didn’t become a reality until I was picked up by The Second City and then the main stage.”

According to a statement provided to the New York Post, Finn was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2022. Although he went into remission, the cancer later returned and metastasized.

A lifelong Bears fan, Finn “often showed the biggest signs when the Bears scored a touchdown” in his final days, the statement from the actor’s family said. “No pressure Bears — just saying — do it for Pat.”

Finn is survived by wife Donna and their three children, Cassidy, Caitlin and Ryan.