UFC president Dana White (pictured) has urged President Donald Trump to support the reversal of a new US gambling tax provision that limits the deductibility of gambling losses, adding further political pressure to an issue already being challenged by Nevada lawmakers and the gaming industry.
The provision, introduced under Trump’s 2025 tax legislation and effective from January 1st, 2026, allows gamblers to deduct only 90% of their losses against winnings, down from the previous 100% treatment. Critics argue the change can create taxable “phantom income”, where a bettor who breaks even or loses money overall may still face a federal tax liability.
White raised the issue in a letter to Trump, arguing that the change makes legal betting less attractive in the US and risks damaging the regulated market.
The tax change has become a growing point of friction between lawmakers, the gaming industry and professional gamblers. Opponents say the measure risks pushing activity away from licensed operators and into unregulated channels, particularly among higher volume bettors for whom loss deductibility is central to the economics of play.
The American Gaming Association has said restoring the full gambling loss deduction remains a priority, while several Nevada politicians have continued to push for legislative change. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Ted Cruz introduced the bipartisan FULL HOUSE Act in 2025 to restore 100% deductibility for gambling losses. But previous attempts to reverse the provision have struggled in Congress. A Senate effort to restore full deductibility was blocked in 2025, while a later House effort also failed to advance.
For the US gaming sector, White’s intervention is significant because it brings a high-profile sports and entertainment figure into a tax debate that had largely been led by Nevada lawmakers, gaming lobbyists and professional bettors. The issue also highlights the increasingly close relationship between sports, betting and political regulation in the US. As legal wagering continues to expand, tax policy is becoming a more prominent part of the commercial debate around whether regulated betting can remain competitive against illegal and offshore alternatives.
