States get to set lending rates — or not. Consumers lose federal floor.

What it does

This bill amends the Truth in Lending Act to allow each state to set its own maximum interest rate (APR) cap for consumer credit products like personal loans, credit cards, and auto loans — overriding any federal floor. A consumer in a state with a 36% cap would be protected at 36%; a consumer in a state with no cap would have no federal protection. The bill empowers state legislatures to regulate lending rates within their borders.

Why we flagged it

The bill's title emphasizes 'States' Rights' and consumer protection, but its operative mechanism removes federal APR constraints and delegates rate-setting to states. This is a devolution of federal consumer protection authority, not a strengthening of it — the civic effect depends on whether states choose to fill the gap.

What the text implies

• States with no usury laws or high caps will see no change in lending rates; consumers there lose federal protection without gaining state protection.
• The bill creates regulatory arbitrage: lenders may relocate or restructure operations to serve consumers in high-cap or no-cap states, concentrating predatory lending in deregulated jurisdictions.
• Interstate lending (online, mail, phone) becomes complex: a lender must comply with the rate cap of the consumer's state of residence, not the lender's state, creating compliance burden and potential evasion.
• The phrase 'notwithstanding' any other law suggests this overrides existing federal TILA provisions; the full scope depends on how courts interpret the interaction with 15 U.S.C. § 1692 and other federal lending rules.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens in states with strong usury laws gain explicit federal backing for those caps; citizens in states with weak or no caps lose any federal safety net and face unlimited rates. The bill creates a patchwork: some consumers are better protected, others worse off depending on state action.

Who stands to gain

• consumer finance companies
• payday lenders
• credit card issuers
• auto finance companies
• online lending platforms

Named in the bill

Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Chapter 2 of TILA, Section 140B (new), State legislatures, Consumer credit market

Where it stands

3 cosponsors: 3 Democrats.

• Jan 29, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Jan 29, 2026 — Referred to Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,280,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 27 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Sheldon Whitehouse, the sponsor, reported $52,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Jpmorgan Chase Holdings LLC — $1,190,000 on 1 filing
• Center for Responsible Lending a Supporting Corp of Ctr for Community Self-help — $90,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.