Gambling Community Criticizes Support for OBBBA
The American Gaming Association (AGA) is under intense scrutiny after endorsing President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which includes a controversial change to how gambling losses are taxed. The legislation caps the deductibility of gambling losses at 90%, potentially leading to tax liability even when a player breaks even.
While the broader betting community raised alarms about the long-term effects on regulated markets, the AGA praised the bill as a measure to boost U.S. economic competitiveness. In a statement posted on X, the organization expressed enthusiasm for the tax policy, highlighting its potential to support consumer spending, job creation, and industry innovation.
High-Volume Bettors Could Be Forced Out
Despite the AGA’s positive tone, many bettors are alarmed. Under the new rule, players who win and lose the same amount could still owe taxes on the 10% of losses the IRS refuses to recognize. For high-volume and professional gamblers, this means being taxed on money they never truly won—a model that could make professional betting unsustainable.
The concern extends beyond personal losses. Industry insiders warn that such a policy may drive experienced gamblers to unregulated platforms, reducing overall handle on legal sites and damaging operator revenue.
Impact on the Regulated Market
Ironically, the policy could initially benefit operators. With fewer skilled advantage players in the mix, casual bettors—who statistically lose more—would dominate the customer base. But experts caution that this short-term gain could harm the long-term integrity and balance of the market.
Congresswoman Dina Titus of Nevada, a longtime advocate for the casino industry, voiced strong opposition. She criticized both the AGA and lawmakers who approved the provision, arguing it could discourage tourism and damage the image of U.S. casinos if visitors are taxed on winnings they never actually collected.
Political Calculations Behind AGA’s Position?
Some analysts suggest the AGA’s support may be strategic. The Trump administration’s posture toward dissent has led many organizations to adopt a cautious approach. By aligning with the administration, the AGA might be safeguarding its access to decision-makers—even if it means losing credibility among core industry stakeholders.
For now, the AGA has not indicated whether it plans to seek revisions to the bill. Until then, gamblers across the country may continue to face growing financial pressure under a policy many consider unfair and counterproductive.
