{"id":23222,"date":"2026-02-10T20:44:08","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T20:44:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/incredipros.com\/?p=23222"},"modified":"2026-02-10T20:44:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T20:44:09","slug":"tracking-trumps-affordability-proposals-how-his-policies-could-affect-your-wallet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/incredipros.com\/?p=23222","title":{"rendered":"Tracking Trump\u2019s Affordability Proposals: How His Policies Could Affect Your Wallet"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Donald Trump and his administration have made a lot of big promises to improve affordability since taking office. Those promises have ramped up as consumers increasingly feel pinched by the U.S. economy, from sticky inflation and a stagnant job market to high interest rates. The macroeconomic data broadly suggests that the economy is chugging along just fine, but there\u2019s been a growing mismatch between what the data shows and how average Americans feel about their finances.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many economists chalk this up to the U.S. increasingly operating as a K-shaped economy \u2014 one where the highest-income Americans continue to see their income and wealth rise, while the less well-off face continued, or growing, financial strife. The fortunate few are propping up the economy with their spending, the argument goes, while middle and lower-income Americans are falling further behind because of the cumulative impact of higher prices, weaker wage gains, fewer job openings and more.\u00a0<\/p>\n

To help cut through the noise, Bankrate is tracking the Trump administration\u2019s affordability proposals that could have the biggest impact on your wallet. Below is a look at what Trump has proposed since taking office to improve affordability and where those proposals stand today. We\u2019ll continue to update this tracker as new developments emerge.<\/p>\n

\n<\/section>\n

Housing<\/h2>\n

Ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, 2026, targeting large institutional investors that buy single-family homes, with the goal of keeping more of those homes available for families. The order limits certain federal housing programs from approving, backing or otherwise helping with sales that could reasonably go to individual homebuyers. However, the order doesn\u2019t clearly spell out what counts as a \u201csingle-family home\u201d or who qualifies as a \u201clarge institutional investor.\u201d It directs the Treasury secretary to define those terms by Feb. 19.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. The executive order requests several federal agencies to issue guidance, review current regulations and implement requirements on large institutional investors buying or holding single-family homes. But no material action has been taken yet by agencies or Congress.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Jan. 7, 2026<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>17%. That\u2019s the percentage of real estate investors of all sizes \u2014 small investors and large institutions \u2014 who bought U.S. homes in the third quarter of 2025, according to Redfin.<\/p>\n

\n

\n This proposal, while it sounds promising, is unlikely to move the needle much. Institutional investors make up a very small amount of homebuyers nationwide. However, in some markets, particularly in the Sun Belt, banning institutional investors could help lower rents and home prices. The real questions are, ‘How will this proposal be implemented?’ and ‘Is it even legal?’<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Andrew Dehan, Bankrate housing market analyst
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

The 50-year mortgage<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Trump floated the idea to offer a half-century home loan option to qualified mortgage borrowers, with the aim of improving access and affordability to a stuck-in-the-mud housing market. Currently, anything beyond a 30-year home loan, such as the existing 40-year option, is a non-qualified mortgage.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte told the media that the Trump administration had \u201cother priorities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Nov. 18, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>$389,000. That\u2019s the long-haul added cost in accruing interest of tacking another two decades onto the standard 30-year mortgage, according to an Associated Press analysis.<\/p>\n

\n

\n Pulte touted the 50-year mortgage as a \u2018game changer,\u2019 but it could be anything but. A 50-year mortgage sounds good on paper because of the supposed lower monthly payments. But there are three big tradeoffs: One, it would take homeowners longer to build equity, as their principal payments will be smaller at the beginning of the loan. Two, with a 50-year loan, homeowners would pay way more in interest over the life of the loan. And three, homeowners could be paying for the house well into retirement.<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Linda Bell, Bankrate housing market analyst and certified HELOC specialist
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

$200 billion mortgage bond move<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Trump ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities in a bid to lower mortgage rates, with Pulte subsequently authorizing even higher limits.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>In effect. Mortgage rates responded positively to the news on Jan. 9, with the average 30-year rate dipping below 6% for the first time in nearly three years. They\u2019ve since moved back up to the low-6% range and stayed there.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Jan. 8, 2026<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>10%. While $200 billion sounds like a lot of money, it\u2019s only about one-tenth of the $2 trillion in mortgage-backed securities held by the Federal Reserve.<\/p>\n

\n

\n This move briefly pushed mortgage rates down, mainly by compressing the ‘spread’ between mortgage rates and 10-year Treasury yields. However, the consensus is that a one-time shot of $200 billion isn’t enough to hold down mortgage rates for long.<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Jeff Ostrowski, Bankrate housing market analyst
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Tap 401(k) funds for down payments<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Allow aspiring homebuyers to tap their 401(k) retirement accounts \u2014 without penalty \u2014 for down payments toward a property purchase. The plan would conceivably ease the process of accessing 401(k) loans that already exist.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. Trump told the White House press corps that he was \u201cnot a huge fan\u201d of this proposal, about a week after White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told Fox Business Network that Trump would unveil a \u201cfinal plan\u201d for it at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Jan. 16, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>5 years. Under current IRS rules, you must repay 401(k) loans within this timeframe. However, leaving your employer could trigger a faster repayment of the debt.<\/p>\n

\n

\n Options for taking money from an active 401(k) are already available: 401(k) loans and hardship withdrawals. Each has its own pros and cons. The nature of the forthcoming proposal from the White House is unknown. Adjusting the limits, payback period, taxes and penalties of these current options might be possible. However, using funds to incorporate home equity into an existing 401(k) as an investment is simply not possible. Doing this would run afoul of countless ERISA and IRS rules, and would create ongoing headaches for homeowners, such as including the 401(k) as partial owner on closing docs and the home deed.<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Stephen Kates, CFP, Bankrate financial analyst
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Investing<\/h2>\n

\u201cTrump accounts\u201d for kids<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Seed investment accounts with $1,000 of Uncle Sam\u2019s money \u2014 and private donations from philanthropists \u2014 for American babies born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. The Trump accounts are controlled by each child\u2019s legal guardian until age 18. Parents can contribute up to $5,000 per year, and a growing number of companies have announced plans to offer employee matching.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Coming soon. These government-subsidized savings vehicles for children are scheduled to become available July 4, 2026.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>June 9, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>$149,000. The initial $1,000 deposit would grow to this amount after 65 years, assuming an 8%, inflation-adjusted return, according to Bankrate\u2019s Kates. It would similarly grow to $4,000 over 18 years and $10,000 over 30.<\/p>\n

\n

\n Whether or not your child qualifies for the free money, it\u2019s important to be aware of both this and other options for investing for your child\u2019s future. Each has its own contribution limits, restrictions and potential rates of return.<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Karen Bennett, consumer banking analyst
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Credit<\/h2>\n

A one-year, 10% cap on credit card APRs<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Force credit card issuers to max out interest rates at 10%, so the \u201cAmerican public\u201d won\u2019t \u201cbe \u2018ripped off,\u2019\u201d Trump announced on Truth Social.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced a bill to cap rates for five years. Trump had initially called for a one-year ceiling to take effect on Jan 20.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Jan. 9, 2026<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>19.61%. That\u2019s the average APR on credit cards charged interest as of early\u00a0 February, the latest data available from Bankrate.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\n This proposal sounds a lot better than it really is. There are major unintended consequences. For example, if credit card issuers can charge a maximum of 10%, they’re likely to stop lending to millions of Americans, especially those with lower incomes and lower credit scores. If their access to credit cards goes away, what are they going to turn to instead \u2014 a payday loan with a 400% APR?<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Ted Rossman, Bankrate senior industry analyst
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Tax deductions on auto loan interest<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>This new tax benefit lets you write off up to $10,000 a year in interest paid on an auto loan for a qualifying vehicle. You can claim the deduction whether you take the standard deduction or itemize, but it only applies to purchases made between the beginning of 2025 and the end of 2028. One key requirement: the vehicle must undergo final assembly in the U.S.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>In effect, as part of the Trump administration\u2019s One Big Beautiful Bill.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>July 4, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>$10,000. This new tax deduction allows taxpayers to deduct up to that much in auto loan interest after purchasing a qualifying vehicle.<\/p>\n

\n

\n A tax break for paying interest on your car loan sounds like a great deal, particularly with a maximum deduction of $10,000. When you look under the hood, however, the benefits might be minimal. That’s because only newly-purchased cars that undergo final assembly within the U.S. are eligible, and many consumers are shut out of the new-car market because of rising prices. And even if you can afford a new car from a dealership, you’ll likely only receive a few hundred dollars of a tax break for each year you’re repaying the loan. To get the full $10,000 tax deduction, you’d need to spend well over $100,000 on your new wheels \u2014 and how many of us are realistically doing that?<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Andrew Pentis, Bankrate consumer lending analyst and certified loan counselor
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Keep some medical debt on credit reports<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Allow credit bureaus to report unpaid medical debt over $5,000 on consumers\u2019 credit reports, building on the momentum of a federal ruling in July 2025 that stopped the Biden administration\u2019s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from its efforts in the opposite direction.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>In effect. The Trump administration\u2019s watered-down CFPB issued a rule last fall barring states from removing medical debt from credit reports.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Oct. 28, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>$49 billion. This amount of unpaid medical bills would have been removed from credit reports nationwide, boosting credit scores by an average of 20 points for about 15 million Americans, according to the Biden-era CFPB.<\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s important to note that most medical debt still isn\u2019t appearing on Americans\u2019 credit reports. Because of voluntary changes implemented by the credit bureaus, the only medical debts that should still appear on credit reports are unpaid medical collections over $500 that have been in collections for more than a year.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ted Rossman<\/cite>
\n Bankrate Senior Industry Analyst<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lower credit card processing fees<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Increase competition among credit card issuers as the means to decrease transaction processing surcharges, or \u201cswipe fees.\u201d<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Roger Marshall (R-Ka.) introduced the Credit Card Competition Act in 2023 \u2014 but Trump\u2019s early 2026 support of it revived debate.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Jan. 13, 2026<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>80%. That\u2019s the senators\u2019 estimate of how much of the credit card market is controlled by what it calls the \u201cVisa-Mastercard duopoly.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

This proposal sounds friendly \u2014 promoting competition sounds good, right? \u2014 but could significantly undermine credit card rewards. While it\u2019s not a hard cap on the interchange fees that card companies charge merchants, it could incentivize a race to the bottom with low-cost, perhaps not-as-secure processing networks gaining market share. And past experience shows us that merchants wouldn\u2019t share the savings with consumers. They would pocket the money while banks cut back on rewards, which are funded primarily via interchange fees.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Ted Rossman<\/cite>
\n Bankrate senior industry analyst<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Economy<\/h2>\n

Announce next Federal Reserve Chair<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Trump has been putting political pressure on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates since early 2025, publicly criticizing him and urging him to step down. As of January 2026, Powell is the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice criminal investigation into his congressional testimony about the Federal Reserve\u2019s $2.5 billion headquarters renovation project.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>With the investigation ongoing, the situation remains stalled. Powell has dismissed the probe as politically motivated. On Jan. 30, President Trump announced he will nominate Kevin Warsh to be the next Federal Reserve chair when Powell\u2019s term as chair ends in May 2026.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>April 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>Three. That\u2019s how many rate cuts Bankrate\u2019s 2026 Interest Rate Forecast projects for 2026, totaling 0.75 percentage point.<\/p>\n

\n

\n Americans want affordability, not just in housing, but at the grocery store, the gas pump and on everyday bills. But history shows that cutting interest rates for political reasons, not economic ones, can make those problems worse. Inflation can balloon further, and many interest rates across the economy can move in the opposite direction of the Fed: up. When monetary policy goes wrong, everyday Americans pay the price.<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Sarah Foster, U.S. economy analyst
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

$2,000 tariff dividend checks<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>President Donald Trump announced last fall on Truth Social that Americans would receive $2,000 tariff dividend checks from the government by mid-2026.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. Tariff dividend checks will need Congressional approval.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Nov. 9, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>$200 billion. That\u2019s how much the U.S. reportedly collected in tariffs from Jan. 20 to Dec. 15, according to a statement released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.<\/p>\n

\n

Past stimulus checks have required Congressional approval, so there is no precedent for the president to unilaterally pay out stimulus or \u2018refund\u2019 checks to Americans. The Supreme Court case that will decide the legality of most of the tariffs puts the idea of a tariff dividend further at risk, even if Congress was on board.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Stephen Kates, CFP<\/cite>
\n Bankrate financial analyst<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Student loans<\/h2>\n

Restrict Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>The U.S. Department of Education under the Trump administration is overhauling the PSLF program and issued a final rule on Oct. 30 that narrows eligibility for the program. The rule targets employers engaged in what the administration defines as \u201cillegal activities,\u201d including those related to discrimination, terrorism and transgender issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. The final rule is slated to take effect July 1, 2026, however, more than a dozen states have sued the administration over it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Oct. 30, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>10 years. Under the PSLF program, student loan debt is forgiven for government and nonprofit employees after a decade of qualifying payments.<\/p>\n

\n

These are crushing developments for federal student loan borrowers who are progressing toward PSLF relief while working for one of the types of nonprofit employers under fire from Trump. PSLF has long been riddled with servicing failures, but for affected borrowers, this takes the cake: Pending legal challenges, it could eliminate their eligibility altogether. More broadly, if the legal battle plays out in Trump\u2019s favor, it could set a dangerous precedent for this and future administrations.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Andrew Pentis<\/cite>
\n Bankrate consumer lending analyst and certified loan counselor<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Move federal student loan servicing\u00a0<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>The federal student loan portfolio is currently managed by Federal Student Aid (FSA) within the U.S. Department of Education, but there are proposals to shift this responsibility to other agencies, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Small Business Administration (SBA), or even private lenders.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. These proposals, which were first surfaced as part of Project 2025,\u00a0 haven\u2019t made progress. As of now, federal student loans remain under the Department of Education.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>March 21, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>$1.6 trillion. The U.S. Department of Education oversees roughly this much in federal student loan debt for over 40 million borrowers.<\/p>\n

\n

Unfortunately, federal student loan borrowers are in a no-win situation right now. If their government-held education debt is shifted from the decimated Education Department to the Treasury or SBA, neither agency is likely to do much better at supervising the portfolio or the contracted federal loan servicers, at least not right away. And if the administration is somehow able to sell off these federal loans to private lenders, well, we have seen that movie before \u2014 remember the rising default rates of Federal Family Education Loans? Unfortunately, that means federal loan borrowers will continue to receive subpar customer service, no matter the source.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Andrew Pentis<\/cite>
\n Bankrate consumer lending analyst and certified loan counselor<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wage garnishment on defaulted student loans<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>The Department of Education announced on Dec. 23 that it would restart collections for borrowers with defaulted student loans, but reversed course within weeks. The department is now indefinitely delaying wage garnishment while it works to implement major student loan repayment reforms passed under the Trump administration\u2019s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Paused. The Department of Education said in a Jan. 16 statement that it would delay garnishing wages, seizing tax refunds and collecting other benefits from federal student loan borrowers in default.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Dec. 23, 2025<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>8.8 million. The number of borrowers that were 270-plus days delinquent on their federal student loans as of the end of last year, according to advocacy group Protect Borrowers.<\/p>\n

\n

Finally, good news for distressed federal student loan borrowers. It\u2019s an about-face for a Trump administration that has long taken a hard stance with the most vulnerable education debtors. The key is for borrowers to take advantage of this reprieve by rehabilitating their debt before the bill \u2014 and threat of wage garnishment \u2014 comes due yet again.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Andrew Pentis<\/cite>
\n Bankrate consumer lending analyst and certified loan counselor<\/span>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Insurance<\/h2>\n

Lower auto insurance rates<\/h3>\n

The proposal: <\/strong>Lower car insurance costs for Americans at a time when the price of buying and maintaining a vehicle is at an all-time high.<\/p>\n

Where it stands: <\/strong>Stalled. Trump\u2019s post on X (formerly Twitter) in the fall of 2024 hasn\u2019t appeared to move the needle, in part because insurance is regulated at the state level.<\/p>\n

Date proposed: <\/strong>Sept. 17, 2024<\/p>\n

Number of note: <\/strong>73%. The increased cost of auto insurance, according to Trump\u2019s accounting. However, that figure has been debunked by insurance experts interviewed by Bankrate.<\/p>\n

\n

\n Car insurance pricing is a complex ecosystem shaped by everything from claims trends and medical costs to climate risk, litigation, fraud and advancing vehicle technology. Real reform would require long-term collaboration across state legislatures, regulators, insurers and consumer advocates \u2014 far beyond the reach of executive action. Ironically, some of the administration\u2019s own policies, like the implementation of import tariffs, actually drive rates higher by increasing vehicle and repair costs. That\u2019s the exact opposite of the 50% rate cut that was promised.<\/q>
\n
\n \u2014 Shannon Martin, Bankrate insurance analyst and licensed insurance agent
\n <\/cite>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n Did you find this page helpful?<\/p>\n
\n
\n

\n Why we ask for feedback<\/strong>
\n Your feedback helps us improve our content and services. It takes less than a minute to
\n complete.\n <\/p>\n

Your responses are anonymous and will only be used for improving our website.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

Help us improve our content<\/p>\n

\n