A Senate Commerce subcommittee held a hearing last month titled "No Sure Bets: Protecting Sports Integrity in America," examining whether the federal government should play a larger role in regulating online sports betting. Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said the goal was to strengthen oversight, protect competition credibility, and address exposure of young people to betting platforms. The session highlighted an emerging policy divide over how gambling should be governed.
Currently, 39 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized sports betting and regulate it under their own laws. Proponents of state control argue that local jurisdictions possess police power authority over matters of health, safety, and public order, making them better suited to manage gambling regulation than federal agencies.
What the Left Is Saying
Senators and advocates supporting some federal oversight argue that online sports betting presents unique challenges that cross state lines. They contend that a patchwork of 39 different regulatory regimes creates gaps that operators could exploit. Consumer protection groups have pointed to research suggesting links between expanded gambling access and problem gambling rates, particularly among younger users.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has indicated support for federal standards that would require states to meet minimum consumer protections before approving betting platforms. Advocates argue this would prevent a race to the bottom among state regulations competing for tax revenue from gambling operators.
The hearing focused on protecting children and young adults from betting platform exposure, with critics noting that apps can be accessed easily despite age restrictions. Some Democratic senators have called for federal data collection requirements that would help researchers study gambling addiction patterns across state lines.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative lawmakers and limited-government advocates argue that online sports gambling falls squarely within state authority under the Constitution's federalist structure. They contend that Congress has no enumerated power to regulate recreational gambling, which historically has been a matter of state concern.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the full Commerce Committee, framed the debate around integrity rather than prohibition. "Fans shouldn't have to wonder if their favorite player missed a buzzer-beater or dropped a touchdown pass because of a secret bet," he said at the hearing. Legal sportsbooks can serve as investigators' eyes and ears, reporting suspicious betting patterns that might go undocumented in illegal markets.
The author of submitted testimony from the Taxpayers Protection Alliance argued that state-regulated platforms have already reduced the black market's share. He noted that Congress previously attempted to ban online gambling through the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2018. "Congress should not once again attempt to make a federal case out of the issue," he wrote.
What the Numbers Show
According to data cited at the hearing, two-thirds of sports bettors spend less than $100 per month on average, comparable to typical consumer discretionary spending. The American Gaming Association estimates Americans wager approximately $84 billion annually on sports using illegal and offshore operations.
Since 2022, the share of sports bettors exclusively using illegal sources has fallen by one-third, according to AGA data. Illegal sportsbooks' market share dropped from 35 percent to 24 percent as legal markets expanded. The American Consumer Institute found that legalization progress has not significantly increased overall gambling expenditures in states studied.
In October 2025, the Justice Department announced an indictment of six defendants charged with wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering related to illegal bets on NBA games, a case where information from legal sportsbooks reportedly aided investigators.
The Bottom Line
The Senate hearing signals potential legislative interest in federal sports betting rules, though constitutional questions about federal authority remain significant obstacles. Any federal action would likely face court challenges similar to those that struck down PASPA in 2018. States currently operating legal markets may resist preemption efforts that could force changes to their regulatory frameworks. Watch for whether future hearings produce bipartisan legislation or stall over federalism concerns.