OPINION: The SAFE Bet Act is an Overstep in Federal Power

• A new federal push to regulate sports betting threatens to override state authority and disrupt carefully crafted local policies.
• The SAFE Bet Act grants excessive power to the DOJ, raising concerns about selective enforcement and government overreach.

WASHINGTON – The reintroduction of the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every (SAFE) Bet Act may be framed as a consumer protection effort, but it is, in reality, a massive overreach of federal authority that undermines state autonomy and free enterprise.

The bill, championed by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), seeks to impose rigid national restrictions on the sports betting industry, including prohibitions on sportsbook bonuses that focus on secondary deposits (reloads), restrictions on VIP programs, and mandatory disclosure of true odds for parlay wagers.

While these measures may seem reasonable at a glance, they represent a dangerous precedent of excessive federal intervention into a domain traditionally overseen by states.

The Case Against Federal Overreach

For decades, gambling regulation has been the purview of state governments. Since the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on sports betting in 2018, states have meticulously crafted their regulatory frameworks, taking into account local economic conditions, consumer protections, and tax structures.

The SAFE Bet Act dismisses these efforts, instead proposing a top-down approach that negates the years of work put in by state legislatures and gaming commissions.

The Trump Factor: Skepticism Toward the DOJ

Another critical element of the SAFE Bet Act is its reliance on federal enforcement mechanisms, particularly through the Department of Justice (DOJ). This reliance comes at a time when many conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, have expressed deep skepticism about the DOJ’s role in policy enforcement.

Trump has frequently railed against what he calls a weaponized Justice Department, arguing that its interventions often serve political rather than legal purposes.

This distrust of the DOJ is highly relevant to the SAFE Bet Act’s fate. The bill would require states to apply for approval from the U.S. Attorney General to operate legal sports betting markets. This is a significant shift in power, essentially giving the federal government the ability to approve or deny state-run gaming industries at its discretion.

Given the history of selective enforcement within federal agencies, many states with legal sports betting are unlikely to accept such a condition.

The skepticism surrounding the DOJ is not just a partisan issue. Even nonpartisan industry experts, such as former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement director David Rebuck, have noted that the bill’s chances of passing are slim given the current political climate. If the bill were to pass, it would hand the DOJ sweeping oversight capabilities that could be used inconsistently or as a political tool.

A Solution in Search of a Problem?

Tonko and Blumenthal argue that legal online sportsbooks have caused significant social harm, likening it to addictive substances like nicotine or illicit drugs. However, their argument ignores the fact that gambling addiction is not exclusive to sports betting and that the legal sports betting industry already has robust self-exclusion programs.

By placing regulatory power in the hands of the DOJ—an institution increasingly viewed as politically motivated—the bill only fuels concerns about selective enforcement and government overstep.

Instead of implementing sweeping federal mandates, lawmakers should focus on supporting state efforts to regulate sports betting in a responsible manner. The SAFE Bet Act is a solution in search of a problem, and Congress should reject it in favor of policies that respect state sovereignty and the principles of a free market.

News tags: Congress | David Rebuck | Department of Justice | DOJ | Donald Trump | New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement | Paul Tonko | Richard Blumenthal | SAFE Bet Act | Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act | U.S. Attorney General | U.S. Supreme Court