

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Leah Plunkett – National Consumer Law Center: 617-542-8010
Jean Ann Fox – Consumer Federation of America: 928-772-0674
Gail Hillebrand – Consumers Union: 415-431-6747, ext 136
Many states are failing to provide adequate protections for consumers against extremely expensive credit according to a new report by
the National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Federation of America, and
Consumers Union. The Scorecard updates a 2008 report and grades states
on how well they protect consumers from excessive interest charges on
small loan products. It illustrates why Americans need a strong
Consumer Financial Protection Agency as part of the financial reform
package currently under consideration in the Senate.
"Steep rates for short-term small loans trap borrowers in
unaffordable debt," said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services
for Consumer Federation of America. "As consumers struggle to make ends
meet in a tight economy, they need protection against rate gouging."
States traditionally regulate the rates and terms for nonbank small
loan products. The report evaluates how well states are doing on
curbing usury by examining the statutory maximum annual percentage rate
(APR) of interest and fees for four typical small-dollar loan products
and whether these products' APRs are limited by the state's criminal
usury cap. The four loan products evaluated in the report are payday
loans; auto title loans; six-month, $500 unsecured installment loans;
and one-year, $1,000 unsecured installment loans.
States received a "Passing" grade if the loan product's APR was 36
percent or less or if they prohibited payday or auto title loans.
States that did not have a cap on the loan product's APR or those that
allowed a loan product's APR to exceed 36 percent received a "Failing"
grade.
"The 2010 Scorecard shows that consumers need effective loan
protections at both the state and federal level," said Gail Hillebrand,
manager of Consumers Union's DefendYourDollars.org campaign. "Congress
should make sure that financial reform includes a strong, independent
watchdog in Washington to protect consumers from unfair lending
practices no matter what state they live in. And states should have the
power to enforce the law and enact even stronger safeguards."
Legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate in 2009 to
cap the cost of credit at 36 percent (S. 500 Durbin and H.R. 1608
Speier). In 2006, Congress enacted a 36 percent rate cap to protect
Service members and their families from abusive lending. Thirty-six
percent is the limit set by the FDIC's Responsible Small Dollar Lending
Guidelines and is double the cap for federally-chartered credit unions.
The 36 percent rate cap on small loan lending became a part of civil
law in most states by the mid-twentieth century to address the
widespread problem of loan sharking.
Based on a review of state laws governing the four loan products, the report found that:
* Eight jurisdictions protect consumers against abusive lending
practices for all four small dollar loan products: Arkansas,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Vermont. In addition, Massachusetts and West Virginia
come close to earning a perfect score but fees added to low interest
for $500 unsecured installment loans in those states push the APR to 37
and 38 percent, respectively.
* Fifteen states currently fail to protect consumers against abusive
lending for all four products: Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. When Arizona's
payday loan law sunsets July 1, 2010, the state will get a passing
grade on that product.
* States scored the worst when it came to payday loans. Thirty-six
states fail to protect consumers against high cost payday loans.
Thirty-one states fail to protect consumers from high-costs for
six-month, $500 unsecured installment loans and twenty states fail to
protect consumers against expensive auto title loans.
* States scored better when it came to protecting consumers against
expensive one-year, $1,000 unsecured installment loans. Twenty-eight
states and the District of Columbia received a "Passing" grade.
* Five states set no usury caps for small loans, including Delaware, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin.
* Since states were graded in 2008, voters in Ohio and Arizona
rejected triple-digit rates charged by payday lenders. New Hampshire
imposed 36 percent rate caps for both payday and car title loans. The
Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that payday lending violated the state's
constitutional usury ceiling and the Attorney General shut down payday
lending. This year, Maryland closed a loophole to prevent online payday
lenders from evading that state's small loan protections.
"Now more than ever, consumers are finding it hard to make ends
meet," said Leah Plunkett, National Consumer Law Center. "States must
vigorously exercise their historic responsibility to protect consumers
from falling prey to abusive practices if they take out small dollar
loans. Predatory loans do consumers more harm than good. Many states
have risen to the challenge. States that fail to enact and enforce
reasonable rate caps permit both consumers and the economy to be
harmed."
A copy of the Scorecard can be found online at:
https://admin.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/File/Updated%20Scorecard%205-12-10%20FINAL.pdf
and https://www.nclc.org/reports/content/cu-small-dollar-scorecard-2010.pdf
A copy of the Statutory Backup can be found online at: https://admin.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/File/Updated%20Scorecard%20backup%205-12-10%20FINAL.pdf
and https://www.nclc.org/reports/content/cu-small-dollar-scorecard-backup-2010.pdf
Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson described Trump's blockade of the island as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country that has produced permanent damage."
After returning from a delegation trip to Cuba, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson on Sunday renewed calls for President Donald Trump to end his illegal fuel blockade of the island, which they described as "cruel collective punishment."
The pair of progressive lawmakers were the first to visit the island since Trump imposed the blockade in January in a bid to cripple the island's economy as part of an effort to overthrow its government, or, in the president's words, "take" the island.
Almost no oil has been allowed to enter for more than three months, which Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jackson (D-Ill.) described as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country—that has produced permanent damage."
"We witnessed firsthand premature babies in incubators, weighing just two pounds, who are at tremendous risk because their ventilators and incubators cannot function without electricity," they said. "Children cannot attend school because there is no fuel for them or their teachers to travel. Cancer patients cannot receive lifesaving treatments because of a lack of medications."
"There is a water shortage because there is little electricity to pump water," they continued. "Businesses have closed. Families cannot keep food refrigerated, and food production on the island has dropped to just 10% of the people’s needs."
The oil blockade is an escalation of more than 60 years of punitive economic warfare by the US against Cuba, imposed through an embargo that has limited Cuba's ability to trade with the rest of the world and hampered its economic development to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Jayapal had previously visited Cuba in February 2024 on a trip with other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Since her last time in Havana, she said, "There's such a big difference."
"So many of the streets of this beautiful city were deserted. People were already lining up for food," she said in an interview with the Cuban outlet Belly of the Beast. "I don't think that any American wants to create this kind of devastation for the Cuban children, for the babies, for the moms, for the people."
She said the phrase "collective punishment," while accurate, almost felt "too technocratic" to describe what she witnessed.
"We are strangling the Cuban people," Jayapal said.
The United Nations General Assembly has voted 33 times to call for the end of the embargo since 1993.
In February, a group of UN experts condemned Trump's fuel blockade as "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order" and an "extreme form of unilateral economic coercion."
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has acknowledged having talks with Trump in recent weeks in order to negotiate an end to the embargo and threats of further aggression.
The Cuban government has taken actions that the lawmakers described as "signs that Cuba is changing." It has released more than 2,000 prisoners, announced economic reforms to allow more involvement of American businesses, and allowed the FBI to investigate Cuban troops' lethal shooting of five armed Cuban exiles as they approached in a speedboat in February.
While hardly softening his threats to Cuba, which he continued to insist was “finished,” Trump last week allowed a Russian oil tanker to dock on the island without incident and deliver around 700,000 barrels of much-needed oil.
But the lawmakers said it's not enough. Jackson, noting the "generosity" of Cuba as a provider of medical treatment around the world, said the US must allow food and fuel to be allowed to return to the island "so that the Cuban people can continue to rise."
Jayapal said that when they spoke with Diaz-Canel, he expressed "a real desire for a real negotiation" with the US, but that he also expressed "sadness" and "frustration" at what was being done to his country.
"These kinds of sanctions, embargoes, they don't get to the government. They hurt the people," Jayapal said. "Perhaps the American people don't understand the violence of an economic sanction versus the violence of dropping a bomb."
Jackson—whose father, the late Rev. Jesse Jackson, took many trips to Cuba during his life—described America's treatment of the nation’s people as a “crucifixion.”
"Americans would not want to see what I saw in that hospital," Jackson said, describing a malnourished baby named Alejandro, whom he said was "fighting for life."
Due to the intermittent power surges caused by the lack of fuel, he said, "We didn't know when the incubator was going to start working."
"That's an act of war," he said. "We have to put an end to that."
He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a Cuban-American who has long sought to bring about regime change, "should come before the Congress and explain his policy."
In late March, Jayapal introduced legislation that would block Trump from conducting military action against Cuba without congressional authorization. She said she'd continue to push for bills to block Trump from launching a war and to push for sanctions relief.
The Trump administration has portrayed its economic warfare as part of an effort to "liberate" the Cuban people from an oppressive government.
But the lawmakers, who met with wide swaths of Cuban society—including business and religious leaders, humanitarian groups, and civil society organizations—said that "Cubans across the political spectrum," including anti-government dissidents, expressed similar feelings.
"Across all sectors, there is agreement," they said. "This illegal blockade must end immediately."
Iran's first vice president called the attack a new "symbol of Trump's madness and ignorance."
A wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Monday hit and extensively damaged Sharif University of Technology, a leading Iranian educational institution that is widely known as "the MIT of Iran" and seen as one of the world's top engineering schools.
The attack on the Tehran university—one of dozens of education sites bombed by the US and Israel since they launched their war on Iran in late February—sparked outrage inside Iran and around the world. Mohammad Reza Aref, an engineer currently serving as Iran's first vice president, said the attack on Sharif University "is a symbol of [US President Donald] Trump's madness and ignorance."
"He fails to understand that Iran's knowledge is not embedded in concrete to be destroyed by bombs; the true fortress is the will of our professors and elites," Aref wrote. "No barbarity in history has ever been able to strip science from the Iranian people. Science is rooted in our souls, and this fortress will not crumble."
The National Iranian American Council called the bombing "another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war."
"This was a center of learning, not a military target," the group wrote on social media, highlighting video footage showing a building in ruins. "The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in Iran is deeply disturbing and will only deepen insecurity for the US and Israel. End this war."
US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American in Congress, noted that Sharif University has "produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies."
"Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?" Ansari asked.
Another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war: U.S.-Israeli strikes have bombed one of the world’s most prestigious universities in Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. This was a center of learning, not a military target. The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in… pic.twitter.com/GE6J8WhgMC
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) April 6, 2026
Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran that the university was "severely hit, with extensive damage reported in the compound's mosque and laboratories."
Vira Ameli, an Iranian global health researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford, decried the US-Israeli strike on Sharif University, where she spent time as a postdoctoral fellow.
"To wake to the news of this war crime, at a distance and unable to return, is difficult to articulate," Ameli wrote. "And yet history has made one thing clear: Iran is not a country undone by bombardment."
Iranian authorities say US-Israeli attacks have hit at least 30 of the nation's universities, including the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology. The US and Israel have justified some of the attacks by claiming the universities were involved in military-related activities.
"Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not," journalist Natasha Lennard wrote in a column for The Intercept last week. "By stated US and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said "bare due diligence" would have exposed ICE officers' falsehoods.
Video footage obtained by The New York Times has exposed lies told by two federal immigration enforcement agents about the circumstances leading up to a non-fatal shooting in Minneapolis that occurred on January 14.
According to a Monday report from the Times, the video directly contradicts claims made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that they were attacked by assailants armed with a shovel and a broom for around three minutes before the agents opened fire and wounded one of the attackers.
"Instead, the confrontation depicted in the video lasts about 12 seconds and shows two men struggling with the agent," reported the Times. "It shows no sustained attack with a shovel."
Federal prosecutors had initially pursued assault charges against Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by the ICE officers during the January confrontation, and fellow Venezuelan national Alfredo Aljorna.
However, the government abruptly dropped charges against the two men in February, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that two federal officers appear “to have made untruthful statements” about the incident.
The Times noted that the government had access to the video of the shooting hours after it took place.
However, one source told the paper that prosecutors didn't watch the video until three weeks after they filed charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, and instead relied on "the ICE agent’s statement and an FBI agent’s affidavit describing the footage."
This revelation prompted a rebuke from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the Times that "bare due diligence would have shown that the agents were lying."
Trump administration officials have come under fire in recent weeks for lying about shootings involving federal immigration officials, such as when former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was aiming “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement."
In reality, video footage showed Pretti never drew his handgun during his confrontation with federal immigration officers, while also clearly showing that officers disarmed him before they opened fire.
Noem also falsely claimed that slain ICE observer Renee Good had attempted "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to run over a federal immigration officer with her car, even though footage clearly showed Good turning her vehicle away from the officer in an attempt to get away from the scene.