Tourism Groups Push Back on the Credit Card Competition Act in 2026

A newly organized travel coalition is campaigning against the measure, warning that changes to card network routing could weaken credit card rewards that help drive tourism spending.

Briefing: Tourism Alliance Opposes Credit Card Plan

• The United States Tourism Economy Alliance, a recently assembled consortium of travel businesses and associations, said in a press announcement last week that the proposal would pare back reward programs offered by credit card companies. The group argues that rewards are often funded in part by fees generated when card transactions are processed, so if those economics shift, issuers could respond by trimming points-earning rates, reducing sign-up bonuses, or scaling back perks such as travel credits and lounge access.
• In criticizing the Credit Card Competition Act, the group argued the bill could hurt travelers who depend on points to fund trips. The alliance is aligned with the Electronic Payments Coalition, which represents banks and card issuers and has long opposed the measure.
• A representative for Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat advocating for passage, did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Context and Reactions: Card Network Proposal Faces Pushback

Earlier in 2026, Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas and Dick Durbin of Illinois reintroduced the Credit Card Competition Act. The measure would require large card issuers with assets of at least $100 billion to enable routing over an additional, unaffiliated payment network beyond Visa and Mastercard, which the senators say dominate the credit card network market. In practice, that threshold targets the biggest national issuers, while smaller banks and credit unions would not be covered. An “unaffiliated” network is intended to mean a separate network not owned or controlled by the same company as the incumbent network used on the card.

The bill’s core idea is to give merchants more than one network option for processing a credit card transaction, pushing networks to compete on price, security, and service.

Supporters say requiring multiple routing options is meant to enhance competition by giving merchants a practical way to select among networks, which could put downward pressure on processing costs and encourage networks to innovate. Critics counter that shifting routing decisions and fee dynamics could lead issuers to adjust card pricing and benefits, potentially leaving some consumers with fewer rewards or changed perks.

Shortly after the reintroduction, the Electronic Payments Coalition denounced the plan as a “big government takeover of the credit card system.” The alliance’s site describes the effort as an Electronic Payments Coalition project, and the Wednesday announcement appeared to be its first public statement.

President Donald Trump endorsed the Marshall–Durbin proposal on Truth Social. Even with that support, the legislation has not moved forward in the Senate or the House since January. The next steps would typically require committee action and leadership agreement to bring it to the floor, along with securing enough votes to pass both chambers.

Last month, backers tried to advance the measure by attaching it to the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, but the attempt failed. Supporters include:

• Merchants Payments Coalition
• National Retail Federation
• National Restaurant Association

According to the alliance, membership includes a range of smaller organizations, including chambers of commerce, airports, and charitable foundations.

More broadly, the fight over the proposal tends to split along incentives: many merchants argue they would benefit from lower interchange-related costs and more processing choice, while banks, card issuers, and networks warn that reduced fee revenue could mean lower rewards and changes to consumer card benefits. Consumers who rarely use rewards could benefit if lower acceptance costs are passed on through prices, while rewards-focused cardholders could be among those most likely to feel a downside if points and perks are reduced.

Travel and tourism sustain countless local economies, Electronic Payments Coalition Executive Chairman Richard Hunt said in the release. Policies that dilute rewards risk slowing growth, trimming consumer benefits, and harming communities that rely on a vibrant travel sector.

The alliance also claimed that reward-earning consumers redeem points for about 15 million domestic flights each year, producing billions of dollars in incremental spending tied to credit transactions.

Durbin has likewise trained attention on airline loyalty rules. In March 2026, he revived the Protect Your Points Act, which would require airlines to notify cardholders one year in advance of any points devaluation or changes to rewards terms.

Separately, there is no general federal government credit card debt relief program that pays off consumers’ credit card balances. Consumers seeking relief typically look to options such as hardship plans offered by issuers, nonprofit credit counseling, debt management plans, settlement negotiations, or bankruptcy, depending on their circumstances.

If a credit card company sues a consumer who cannot pay, the process typically starts with a complaint and summons requiring a response by a deadline. Missing that deadline can lead to a default judgment, which may allow the creditor to pursue collection tools permitted under state law, such as wage garnishment or bank account levies. Consumers who are sued often consider responding in court, negotiating a settlement or payment plan, or seeking legal advice to understand defenses and local rules.