
Senate Republicans block attempt to roll back massive tax hike on professional gamblers
Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada sought unanimous passage of a bill that would roll back the change on gambling tax deductions, but Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana objected, stalling the proposal for now.
The emerging fight over the gambling provision is likely only the beginning of the fallout from the new tax law and its impact on the country. Spanning more than 900 pages, the bill signed into law by President Donald Trump last week contained a slew of provisions changing federal programs and the tax code, many of which lawmakers admit they are only now beginning to fully digest.
'My understanding is many Republicans, many Democrats did not even know it was part of that process,' Cortez Masto said of the gambling provision.
Under the new tax law, starting in 2026, individuals can only deduct 90% of their gambling losses up to the amount of their winnings. That's a change from the previous rule, which allowed gamblers to deduct 100% of their losses, up to the amount they won.
The change will only significantly impact those who gamble larger amounts and who take the extra steps to itemize and deduct their losses. But for those individuals, the impact could be steep.
In practice, for example, under the old rule, someone who wins $100,000 and loses $100,000 could deduct the full $100,000 in losses and owe nothing. Under the new rule, they would only be able to deduct $90,000 and would still owe taxes on the remaining $10,000, despite having lost all their winnings.
'This new amendment to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would end professional gambling in the U.S. and hurt casual gamblers, too,' Phil Galfond, a professional poker player, said on social media just days ahead of the bill's final passage.
The provision was included in the bill's text released on June 16 by Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo. Some senators have said they weren't aware of the provision, and it only publicly came to light days ahead of the bill's passage, with professional gamblers and media figures drawing attention to it.
'Now I see Republican senators walking all over the Capitol saying they didn't even know anything about this policy," said Sen. Ron Wyden, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.
'The fact is, when you rush a process like this, this way, and cram in all of these policies that you haven't really thought about, you risk consequences for people back home. That is what is going on here,' Wyden. said
The provision is estimated to generate over $1.1 billion in tax revenue over eight years. The entirety of the tax break and spending cuts bill will increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Republicans say it was a necessary procedural change tied to the reconciliation process, which allowed them to pass the sweeping bill without Democratic support.
Young, the Indiana Republican who objected to Cortez Masto's bill, said he supports the policy but would only agree to undo it if Democrats accepted other provisions in return.
'I strongly support the underlying bill, but will have to object unless you can agree to my request,' Young said on the Senate floor.
Thursday's attempt by Cortez Masto won't be the last. On Wednesday, she introduced a bill that will first have to go through committee, but has bipartisan support, to restore the full gambling deduction. In the House, Nevada Democratic Rep. Dina Titus has also introduced a bill attempting to return to the previous standard.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
a minute ago
- CNN
Smithsonian removes reference to Trump's impeachments from presidency exhibit
The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History last month removed a board that referenced President Donald Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit on the American presidency. In a statement to CNN on Thursday, The Smithsonian Institution said the decision, which was first reported by The Washington Post, was made after a review of the museum's 'legacy content' this year. Unmentioned in the statement was Trump's executive order earlier this year that appeared crafted to direct the Smithsonian to soften or distort forthright discussions about certain aspects of American history, which could include the legacy of racism in the United States and parts of Trump's own history-making but controversial first term. The exhibit had last been updated in 2008 and included information about the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and the impeachment process against President Richard Nixon, who resigned over the Watergate scandal before he could be formally impeached. Trump is the only president in American history to be impeached twice; in 2019 on charges alleging he unlawfully solicited Ukraine to influence the 2020 presidential election, and in 2021 for his actions related to the insurrection at the US Capitol that year. He was acquitted both times by the Senate. In September 2021, the Smithsonian placed a board over the exhibit which read: 'Case under redesign (history happens*)' and referenced Trump's two impeachments. 'On December 18, 2019, the House impeached Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,' the reference to Trump's first impeachment read. 'The charges focused on the president's solicitation of foreign influence in the 2020 presidential election and his defiance of Congressional subpoenas. President Trump was acquitted in January 2020.' 'On January 13, 2021, Donald Trump became the first president to be impeached twice,' the reference to his second impeachment read. 'The charge was incitement of insurrection, based on repeated 'false statements' challenging the 2020 election results and his January 6 speech that 'encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol. Because Trump's term ended on January 20, his acquittal on February 13 made him the first former president tried by the Senate.' The Smithsonian said in a statement that the board 'was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025.' The statement added: 'A large permanent gallery like The American Presidency that opened in 2000, requires significant amount of time and funding to update and renew. A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.' The statement did not say when the exhibit would be updated. Trump's order aimed at the Smithsonian is just one example of his efforts to exert his influence on American cultural, athletic and artistic institutions and browbeat them into eliminating aspects of their work. They include his efforts to take over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, demand the Washington Commanders football team to revert back to their old name and stop the participation of transgender people in women's sports.

Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
GOP's August town hall push gets heated
The Senate's summer exit is getting complicated as lawmakers brace for some weekend work. Tensions are running high over government funding negotiations. And Senate leaders have yet to seal a deal to advance dozens of President Donald Trump's nominees as Majority Leader John Thune shuttles between the White House and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Here's the latest on where things stand. Funding meltdown — The prospects for two major appropriations bills are dimming after a flurry of drama. The odds of including the Commerce-Justice-Science bill in an appropriations 'minibus' withered late Thursday night. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who has used the bill as a platform to fight the Trump administration's plans for keeping FBI headquarters in Washington, objected to including the CJS legislation in the broader funding package. Van Hollen wants the agency's campus to move to his home state of Maryland, per a prior agreement. Van Hollen's hardball tactics rattled Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), the lead appropriator on the bill, who teared up as he spoke about it on the floor. Moran said he knew 'no path forward' that would allow Van Hollen to amend the bill to address his FBI concerns. 'Our appropriations process is fragile,' Moran said. The Agriculture-FDA funding bill is still a contender for inclusion in the package. But Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said she's seeking answers first from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins about USDA's plans for a major reorganization under Trump. The Senate's legislative branch funding bill still faces a snag with Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). Thune is optimistic the Senate will at least get military and VA funding through before recess. 'We're trying to work out the rest of the package,' Thune said late Thursday. 'And the Dems are now sort of changing their demands with regards to amendments, etc., so we'll have to see if we can land it early tomorrow morning.' Noms, noms, noms – Thune met with Trump on Thursday to update him on his talks with Schumer to confirm the president's nominees. It's the biggest factor threatening to keep the Senate in town longer, given the need to secure unanimous consent to speed up confirmations. Trump isn't signaling that a deal is in hand. In a 9:52 p.m. Truth Social post Thursday, he wrote, 'The Senate must stay in Session, taking no recess, until the entire Executive Calendar is CLEAR!!!' (Trump separately lashed out at Maine's senior senator, saying, 'Republicans, when in doubt, vote the exact opposite of Senator Susan Collins.') Thune staff and Schumer staff are exchanging paper. Senators believe, if it were just up to them, the two leaders could get there. The bigger question is whether any deal they strike can get Trump's blessing, including Democrats' demand that the president unfreeze funding for certain agencies. 'It would be easier if Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump would talk, bare-knuckled New Yorker to bare-knuckled New Yorker,' Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. What else we're watching: — Republicans eye rules revamp to confirm Trump picks: Senate Republicans are heading toward a potential rules change in the fall to speed up confirming Trump's nominees. Thune would need support from nearly all Republicans, and it's not clear he has that yet. — Mullin plots security boost for senators: Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who leads work on legislative branch appropriations, says he's still working through potential security protocols for lawmakers back home, after House leaders unveiled increased funding for their members' residential security. The Oklahoma Republican had previously said a 'test program' could be unveiled as soon as August. 'We're working with Jennifer [Hemingway], the Sergeant-at-Arms, and working through some protocols that may take place and working with state police,' Mullin said. 'But yes, we're very much looking into it.' Jordain Carney contributed to this report.


Fox News
9 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kamala Harris scolds 'piling on' against Joe Biden when asked about separating herself during 2024 campaign
Former Vice President Kamala Harris repeatedly said Thursday she didn't want to be part of a "piling on" against President Joe Biden when pressed about the dynamic of running to replace her boss in the 2024 campaign. During her appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," the host noted that he and others wondered how Harris would be different from Biden, who was forced to drop off the Democratic ticket due to his unpopularity and inability to recover from his catastrophic debate with Donald Trump. "That must have been difficult, because you have to differentiate yourself as a candidate, and yet you respect this man who you're still working for at the same time," Colbert said. "What was that like to navigate?" "I talk about that extensively in the book," Harris said, referencing her newly announced election memoir "107 Days," which refers to the length of her abbreviated campaign. "You're raising something that you and I both know requires a lot more time than we probably have right now to talk about." Colbert teased her that he and his audience weren't in a hurry, before Harris grew serious. "It's an instinct of mine to be someone who does not participate in piling on," she said. "And I was not going to pile on, and I just wasn't going to do that. And there was a lot of piling on at that time, and I wasn't going to participate in that." Harris appeared to be referring to the Democratic ambush of Biden after his health issues could no longer be concealed. Colbert notably didn't ask Harris any questions about Biden's mental decline behind the scenes that has been reported in several books this year. Biden's family is still smarting over the humiliation of him being effectively thrown off the Democratic ticket last year. His aging and cognitive concerns were laid bare during his halting performance at last June's debate with Trump, and eventually the pressure from leaders like Nancy Pelosi and other party luminaries to drop out became too much. Biden quit the race on July 21, 2024, endorsed Harris, and the vice president quickly sewed up the nomination and reset the race with Trump. But Harris and running mate Tim Walz were unable to overcome the headwinds of Biden's unpopularity and her own shortcomings as a candidate, as Trump romped to a comfortable victory on election night. Harris' inability to get out of Biden's shadow haunted her during the campaign. Perhaps Harris' most memorable media blunder came at one of the only venues that could rival Colbert's for friendliness: "The View." Co-host Sunny Hostin asked Harris what she would have done differently than Biden over the past four years, to which Harris responded there was "not a thing that comes to mind." "I've been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact," she added. The Trump campaign used the moment to its advantage, putting the clip in advertisements to counter the image of Harris as a change candidate. The viral interview was at the center of numerous media postmortems about how she lost the race. That same day as her appearance on "The View," Harris went on Colbert's show and dodged his question as well about how her hypothetical administration would differ from Biden's.