Nevada lawmakers pursue change to Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

Charlotte Capewell

5 December 2025 at 6:50am UTC-5

Source: Shutterstock

Email, LinkedIn, and more

Federal lawmakers in Nevada are intensifying efforts to reverse a change to gambling taxation included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was passed on July 4.

The bill includes a provision that, from 2026, will restrict gamblers to deducting only 90% of their losses from their winnings, instead of the previous 100%. Lawmakers are concerned that gamblers could break even over the course of a year and still owe money in taxes.

Article continues below ad

Support has been building to change the law before January 1, with operators and gamblers backing lawmakers, including Nevada Representative Dina Titus, who first brought attention to the issue.

According to KTNV Las Vegas, there is now bipartisan support for repealing the one-line provision, with nine Republicans, including Nevada’s own Rep. Mark Amodei, co-sponsoring the Fair Bet Act.

Speaking on the potential repeal, Titus said ,”[It’s] good for the customer, good for the industry, and good for the community, because of the tax revenue that would be lost if people decided, ‘well, I’m just not going to report this, or I’m not going to come to Las Vegas because I can just bet online overseas’.” While the push for repeal has gained momentum, a final vote has yet to happen. This leaves many in Nevada hopeful that the old rule can be reinstated before the new law takes effect.

Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.

View Charlotte Capewell's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Uncategorized

Sectors:

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

What set off the Nevada push

A little-noticed line in a sprawling federal tax-and-spending package has become a flash point for Nevada’s gaming delegation. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last week, rewrites how gamblers reconcile wins and losses on federal returns starting in 2026: deductions for gambling losses would be capped at 90% of winnings, down from a full offset under prior law. Industry voices warned the shift could mean a player breaks even or loses for the year yet owes taxes, a scenario that quickly galvanized operators and professional players.

Initial reaction was swift. Accountants and players flagged the policy as a de facto surcharge on lawful play, saying it could push activity to offshore sites. In an early roundup of industry concerns, experts told Bloomberg the change would “eat into a lot of their profit,” a theme reflected in local coverage and an explainer on the budget package’s gaming provisions. For context on the sector’s scale, U.S. commercial gaming revenue hit a record $71.9 billion in 2024, according to the American Gaming Association, underscoring the stakes for operators, workers and state treasuries.

The backlash coalesced in Nevada, where casino employment and tourism remain foundational. As the change drew scrutiny, lawmakers warned of two risks: chilled play among tax-sensitive professionals and migration to unregulated platforms. That set the stage for a legislative counteroffensive.

Titus fires the first shot

Rep. Dina Titus introduced the Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation Act, or Fair Bet Act, to restore the long-standing 100% deduction of losses up to winnings. The proposal, co-sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna, is framed as a practical fix to prevent taxing money bettors never truly realized as income. Titus said the bill would give “everyone – from recreational gamblers to high-stakes gamblers – a fair shake.” Coverage of the introduction laid out the rationale, including fears that professionals would be uniquely exposed under a partial deduction regime. Read more on the filing and intent behind the bill in our report on Titus’s Fair Bet Act.

High-profile players amplified the alarm. Professional poker pro Phil Galfond warned the change could “end professional gambling in the US,” arguing some could pay more in tax than they won. His post on X helped crystallize the practical stakes for pros operating on thin margins (Phil Galfond on X). Titus has also leaned on public messaging to build momentum, courting bipartisan support while stressing consumer protection and the economy in Las Vegas (Rep. Dina Titus on X).

Industry anxieties are not confined to Nevada. A broader look at the $1.1 billion projected revenue impact underscores why operators and some lawmakers view a rollback as a near-term priority before the change takes effect.

How the industry is positioning

Operators have tried to calibrate their response. Some say the hit will fall most heavily on pros and high-volume bettors, not casual customers. In Arkansas, BetSaracen’s Carlton Saffa said he didn’t expect material effects on low-dollar recreational players, framing the provision as disruptive to only a “handful of bettors.” At the same time, Saracen backed Titus’s fix to restore the full deduction, signaling alignment with a broader industry push to keep regulated markets attractive. See the perspective from an operator in our interview with BetSaracen’s chief market officer.

That split view—limited impact on casuals but potentially severe for professionals—helps explain why casinos, sportsbooks and player advocates have coalesced behind a full restoration. The common denominator is concern that any wedge between tax policy and economic reality incentivizes bettors to leave regulated ecosystems for untaxed alternatives.

Roadblocks in the Senate

Momentum for a congressional fix met fast resistance. In the Senate, Catherine Cortez Masto sought unanimous consent to reverse the loss-deduction cap but was blocked by Sen. Todd Young, reflecting the broader partisan defensive posture around the new law. The failed bid highlighted how even targeted corrections face procedural and political hurdles. Our coverage of the floor maneuver and the eight-year revenue score is here: Senate Republicans block attempt to undo gambling tax change.

The episode also exposed process grievances. Cortez Masto said many lawmakers didn’t realize the gaming change was in the 900-page package, a point echoed by industry stakeholders who argued the provision lacked robust debate. That complicates the path forward: supporters of the underlying bill are reluctant to unspool individual revenue raisers, even modest ones, ahead of the 2026 start date.

Signals from the states

While Washington haggles over loss deductions, states are prosecuting their own tax battles, often with the same goal: clarity and predictability. Colorado lawmakers advanced a bill to end the practice of deducting promotional credits from taxable sportsbook revenue, seeking to tighten collections and align reported revenue with cash performance. The measure stalled on timing as the session ended, with an amended effective date pushed to July 2026, but it would still meaningfully lift annual revenue when implemented. For details on the proposal and fiscal estimates, see our report on Colorado’s delayed promo tax bill.

The Colorado debate reflects a wider mood among statehouses to capture fuller value from fast-growing online betting without undermining legal markets. That mirrors the federal conversation: tax design can either keep play onshore and transparent or push dollars to gray markets. Policymakers are testing where that line sits.

Why the outcome matters now

The deduction cap lands at a time when commercial gaming continues to set records and policymakers are reassessing how to regulate an expanded online landscape. Advocates for a fix argue that taxing gross wins rather than net results distorts behavior, penalizes legitimate play and risks shrinking the regulated pie. Opponents counter that the change modestly broadens the base and raises needed revenue without harming most casual bettors.

In the weeks since passage, concerns from accountants and players have mounted. A breakdown of the tax package’s impact on gamblers captured the tension: a 10% haircut on losses may appear minor on paper but can erase thin edges that define professional viability. Read more about those concerns in our report on gamblers’ warnings following the bill’s passage.

The legislative math is straightforward but tight. Titus’s Fair Bet Act has bipartisan co-sponsors and industry backing, yet Senate dynamics and the new law’s revenue score complicate a quick fix. With the change scheduled for 2026, both sides face a clock. The next tests: whether House leaders grant floor time, whether Senate opponents soften, and whether a narrower pay-for emerges that preserves revenue without taxing theoretical income. Until then, operators will lobby to keep bettors in regulated markets—and lawmakers in gaming states will press to restore a principle that has long underpinned gambling taxation.