Photos by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images -
By Anna Rahmanan
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
When President Donald Trump called Senator Elizabeth Warren in January to discuss capping credit card interest rates, he found common ground with one of Wall Street's most persistent adversaries. Ten months later, Democrats' victory in the midterm elections has raised the prospect of Warren chairing the Senate Banking Committee while Trump remains in the White House. For Wall Street, that could mean a powerful congressional investigator finding occasional support from a Republican president for measures the banking industry opposes.
The prospect presents an unusual political calculation. Trump has generally favored deregulation, yet he has occasionally challenged banking practices when they conflict with his political priorities. Warren, on the other hand, has built her career around confronting financial power. Their objectives differ profoundly, but even limited cooperation could become consequential if Warren acquires the authority to set the committee's agenda.
A committee chairmanship would allow Warren to pursue investigations, summon banking executives to hearings and advance legislation. Trump's support could in turn give selected proposals an additional source of political leverage, potentially complicating the industry's efforts to resist them.
Read More on Analysis
The Credit Card Fight That Brought Trump and Warren Together
In January, Trump proposed a one-year limit of 10 percent on credit card interest rates. Warren supported the idea and told him that Congress could pass it if he helped secure the votes.
The proposal had already attracted support across party lines. In February 2025, Republican Senator Josh Hawley and independent Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill to impose the same limit.
Related Story
Silicon Valley Has a Critical Security Flaw: Sex
Related Story
The Iowa Governor Wears Prada. The Legislature Wears the Pants
Related Story
There’s a Market for Stephen Miller Lite
Banks opposed the proposal because it would reduce the interest they could charge borrowers. The American Bankers Association estimated that lenders might close or restrict 74 to 85 percent of existing credit card accounts. The industry argues that a cap would make lending to riskier customers unprofitable, leaving many Americans unable to obtain credit.
Warren argues that banks charge consumers excessively high rates. She has pressed federal regulators to take action to lower borrowing costs.
Trump's proposal has not become law. Warren continued pressing regulators in April, after the president's proposed deadline had passed.
The significance for Wall Street is straightforward. Trump and Warren both supported a measure that banks strongly opposed. If they worked together to pass it, the industry could lose an important political defense against tougher restrictions. Warren's possible committee chairmanship would give her more power to bring such proposals forward.
Why Trump and Warren Could Find Common Ground Against Wall Street
Trump's willingness to challenge financial institutions extends beyond credit cards.
In August 2025, he signed an executive order targeting politically motivated debanking, directing regulators to examine whether institutions had improperly denied services because of customers' political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.
The order reflected conservative grievances about access to financial services. Warren's priorities are slightly different, centering on consumer protection and financial accountability. Their criticisms arise from different political traditions, but both have challenged the discretion banks exercise over their customers.
Gerald Epstein, a professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, sees competing ambitions beneath the apparent convergence.
"There might be some convergence between Warren and Trump in terms of regulating banks. But here there would be significant disagreements since they have very different goals," Epstein told Newsweek. "Trump wants to undermine traditional banks in order to make more space for crypto. Warren is a crypto opponent and wants to rein in banks to get them to provide more resources to 'main street.'"
The figures' respective positions on a whole range of topics suggest that any cooperation would be selective, potentially limited to issues where political interests temporarily overlap. But for Wall Street, even a narrow alliance could pose a serious problem.
The Obstacles to a Trump-Warren Coalition
Anurag Gupta, a professor of banking and finance at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management, doubts that occasional agreement will produce meaningful regulatory change.
"I don’t see any convergence of any meaningful impact happening between the two," Gupta told Newsweek. "Credit card rates cap is a tiny part of the overall landscape of financial regulation. So even if occasional alignment happens on such tertiary issues, I don’t believe it is any indicator of a broader alignment."
The administration's efforts to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an institution central to Warren's approach to financial oversight, underscore the difficulty of imagining a sustained partnership.
There are obstacles within the Democratic Party as well. Epstein points to politicians historically sympathetic to banking interests, including Chuck Schumer, as potential impediments to an ambitious regulatory agenda.
Even with greater committee authority, Warren would need sufficient support in Congress to enact legislation. Trump's endorsement could help attract Republican votes, but the president would also have to confront opposition from lawmakers and financial institutions whose interests are often aligned.
Gupta considers such cooperation unlikely to extend very far.
"I believe that there is very little prospect of any broad alignment on meaningful financial regulation. There’s just too much money at stake, which will have the ability to influence those who might try moving in that direction," he said.
Where a Trump-Warren Coalition Could Go Next
Given what we've witnessed so far, credit card rates offer the clearest opportunity for renewed cooperation. Warren could use the Banking Committee to bring the proposal back before Congress, putting Trump in the position of deciding whether to help deliver a measure he has already endorsed.
The two could also find common ground on other banking practices that attract criticism from both parties but their disagreements over cryptocurrency and the role of federal regulators would make cooperation on broader financial reform considerably harder.
For banks, the danger lies in the possibility that isolated agreements become a recurring feature of Washington politics. Warren could investigate financial practices and advance legislation, for example, while Trump's backing could help overcome Republican resistance. Even a handful of successful measures could change how the industry approaches Congress and the White House.
Much will depend on whether Trump is prepared to act on his criticism of banks when doing so means working with Warren. If he is, Wall Street could face an unusual combination of pressure from a Democratic Senate and a Republican president. If he isn't, their occasional agreement may produce little beyond political headlines. Oh, how exciting to witness either development.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines