Exclusive: Democrat on Bipartisan Push to Undo Part of 'Big Beautiful Bill'

Source: Newsweek

Published Jul 20, 2025 at 5:00 AM EDT


Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, has introduced legislation that would restore the 100 percent deduction for gambling losses that Senate Republicans reduced to 90 percent late in the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB).

Titus spoke with Newsweek about her Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation (FAIR BET) Act, which she says so far has garnered "10 times the response" from constituents in her state and beyond compared to other aspects of the OBBB. Republican Representatives including Troy Nehls of Texas and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, also support Titus' bill.

Why It Matters

The roughly 900-page bill passed by Congress included a provision inserted by Senate Republicans without consent of the House that imposed a tax increase on Americans who gamble, reducing from 100 percent to 90 percent the amount of losses they can deduct from gambling winnings for their income taxes.

The new provision, added by the Senate Finance Committee late in the legislative process ahead of the July 4 bill signing by President Donald Trump, means that gambling losses that have traditionally been fully deductible would no longer be so and gamblers could owe taxes even if they ended up with net losses in a year. For example, someone winning $100,000 and then losing that same amount may still owe $10,000 in taxes on that income—even though they broke even.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/big-beautiful-bill-gambling-betting-deductions-gaming-2100834

---

Link to PRESS RELEASE - Rep. Dina Titus Introduces Bill to Restore Gaming Loss Deduction

Link to BILL - H.R.4304 - Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation Act

And with respect to this -



When the House got the bill back from the Senate, their vote to approve it WAS their consent. But then I expect some of the blame is for the Rules Committee and the restrictions (no amendments but they could "fix it later" ).

This is apparently an "All politics is local" example because I can't imagine people in areas nationwide losing money for food pantries or stressing about the FY '26 budget proposal to eliminate funding for LIHEAP (energy assistance for low-income households), after already firing the entire staff that handled the program back in April, giving a damn about high-roller gamblers and what they win or lose with gambling, and writing that off their taxes (unfortunately so many in the bottom 99% rely on the lottery for their dreams). Of course in a parallel sense, you have people with capital gains and then losses writing those losses off.