Will the Credit Card Competition Act receive a committee vote or floor vote in either chamber of Congress by December 31, 2026?

The CCCA has been introduced in prior sessions (2022, 2023) and failed to advance past committee — base rate for introduced bipartisan bills advancing to committee vote is roughly 15-25% in a typical session. However, the Trump endorsement is a structurally different variable that removes the traditional GOP blocking mechanism. The 25-35% passage probability within 2 years implies a committee vote probability meaningfully higher (perhaps 40-55%, since a bill must get a vote before it can pass). The 15-year escalation pattern and DOJ case momentum both reinforce. But the banking lobby is extremely powerful and Congress has limited floor time. The NDAA/appropriations attachment path is the most likely route but uncertain.

Historical precedent is strongly against advancement: CCCA was introduced in 2022 and 2023, both times with bipartisan support, and neither time advanced to committee vote. Trump endorsement is new, but endorsement does not equal legislative priority — Trump has many policy priorities and Congress has limited bandwidth. The banking lobby (ABA, card network associations) has successfully blocked committee markups before. The question asks about ANY vote by end of 2026 — roughly 10.5 months remaining. Committee schedules are crowded. The NDAA attachment path is plausible but uncertain, and leadership can strip amendments under lobby pressure.

The Trump endorsement is genuinely unprecedented for this type of legislation — prior sessions lacked executive branch support. With both bipartisan Congressional support AND presidential endorsement, the political calculus has fundamentally shifted (E2, 2/2 unanimous finding). The resolution criteria include attachment to must-pass legislation (NDAA, appropriations), which bypasses normal committee scheduling constraints. If sponsors pursue this proven legislative strategy, advancement becomes more likely. The regulatory momentum from DOJ case surviving dismissal in June 2025 creates additional political cover. The 15-year escalation pattern with no reversal supports the direction of travel.

Trump endorsement changes the game — prior sessions failed because Republicans blocked it, and that obstacle is removed. The bill has bipartisan sponsors and presidential backing, making a committee markup plausible within 10.5 months. But 'plausible' isn't 'probable' — Congress moves slowly and the banking lobby will fight aggressively. The fact that this has been introduced multiple times without advancing creates a strong base rate against. Even with improved political conditions, legislative inertia and competing priorities (debt ceiling, appropriations battles, other Trump agenda items) will constrain floor time.

The Regulatory Reader's 25-35% passage probability is for full passage within 2 years. A committee vote is a strictly lower bar — bills can receive a vote and still fail passage. So the probability of at least a vote should be higher than the passage probability. If passage is 25-35%, then committee vote probability over a 2-year window could reasonably be 45-60%. But the time constraint (by end of 2026, approximately 10.5 months) narrows this significantly. The NDAA amendment path provides a realistic vehicle with a predictable schedule (committee markup typically spring/summer 2026). The banking lobby can pressure leadership to strip amendments but cannot guarantee it.

Focusing on practical legislative mechanics: attachment to must-pass legislation (NDAA, appropriations) is the most likely advancement path and is explicitly included in resolution criteria. These bills move on predictable schedules. However, committee chairs control what amendments get votes, and the banking lobby has demonstrated ability to pressure leadership on this specific issue. The $16-20B in merchant savings means merchants will lobby for it, but the card networks and banks have deeper pockets and more concentrated lobbying power. CEO McInerney explicitly stated Visa is 'actively lobbying and educating elected officials.' The political balance is closer than prior sessions but still favors the status quo.

Trump endorsement is a significant new factor that removes the primary historical obstacle (GOP opposition). But CCCA failed to advance in two prior sessions even with bipartisan support. The banking lobby is powerful and actively opposing. Congressional attention is split across many priorities. Slightly below coin-flip given the structural improvement from presidential endorsement but strong base rate against legislative advancement.

Presidential endorsement plus bipartisan support plus NDAA attachment path equals plausible advancement. But legislative inertia plus banking lobby plus competing priorities creates significant drag. The 25-35% passage probability over 2 years implies a vote probability somewhat higher but constrained by the 10.5-month timeframe. The 15-year regulatory escalation pattern supports directional momentum but doesn't predict specific legislative timelines.

Most introduced bills never get a committee vote, even bipartisan ones with executive support. The base rate for legislative advancement within a single session is low. While the Trump endorsement is a genuine catalyst, it doesn't guarantee committee action — many endorsed bills stall. The banking lobby's track record of blocking this specific bill is strong. Legislative inertia is the default outcome.