Sweeping GOP budget bill illuminates the central fault line in the modern Republican coalition

The sweeping Republican budget bill advancing through Congress illuminates the central fault line in the modern GOP electoral coalition more starkly than any legislation in decades.
The bill sharpens the GOP's long-standing tension between a political strategy that increasingly relies on financially squeezed working-class voters and an economic agenda that still funnels its greatest direct benefits to the affluent. The budget legislation makes that conflict unusually explicit because, for the first time in 30 years, the GOP has tied large spending cuts that will mostly hurt families below the median income in the same bill with big tax cuts that mostly benefit families above it.
In the past, Republican tax bills 'where the benefits were more tilted toward the rich were not uncommon,' said Harris Eppsteiner, associate director for economic analysis for the Budget Lab at Yale University. 'But the thing that is unique here is that it is paired to cuts in the safety net that will leave folks at the bottom worse off.'
More than any other single factor, Democrats are counting on a voter backlash against the budget bill — which passed the House earlier this month and is moving toward a floor vote maybe as soon as this week in the Senate — to power them to gains in the 2026 midterm elections.
'It's a powerful thing to be able to say they are cutting Medicaid and people's health care, popular programs, to fund a tax cut for the wealthiest people,' said Nick Gourevitch, a Democratic pollster.
Congressional Republicans are already trying to build defenses against that argument. They are highlighting the aspects of the tax plan with the broadest populist appeal and presenting the bill's substantial cuts in Medicaid spending as a form of welfare reform that will preserve benefits for the neediest. Since the Ronald Reagan era, Republicans also have consistently shown that they can neutralize Democratic economic appeals to White blue-collar voters by painting the party as excessively liberal on cultural issues such as crime, immigration and LGBTQ rights.
Yet the magnitude of what Republicans are attempting with this single bill will test that record. Simultaneously, according to nonpartisan analyses, the bill could strip health insurance from at least 16 million Americans and significantly cut food assistance — while also providing tax cuts worth over $100,000 annually to the top 0.1% of earners. Bobby Kogan, a former Senate Budget Committee aide who now analyzes fiscal policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, says that considering all its provisions, the legislation 'would be the biggest transfer from the poor to the rich in a single bill in US history.'
An early skirmish between Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska and a liberal advocacy group is previewing how the debate may play out next year over what Republicans, adopting President Trump's terminology, are calling their 'One Big Beautiful Bill.'
Unrig the Economy, the liberal advocacy group, has run radio and television ads in Bacon's Omaha district attacking him over his vote supporting the budget bill when it passed the House in May. 'He's actually cutting Medicaid so he can give tax breaks to big corporations and billionaires,' an Omaha woman identified as Audrey declares in the television ad.
The argument that Republicans are taking health care from people who need it to fund tax cuts for people who don't is likely to be central in Democratic House and Senate campaigns next year. 'It is key that both House and Senate Democrats continue to implement this message as far and wide as possible,' the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wrote in a strategy memo released earlier this month.
Bacon, one of just three House Republicans left in districts that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, has previewed the likely GOP response to those arguments in his pushback against the advocacy group's ads. He's emphasized the portion of the bill's Medicaid changes adding work requirements. 'We expect if you're an able-bodied adult without children that you should be seeking a job or getting the skills to get another job or as a minimum, volunteering 20 hours a week,' Bacon said in a press call with local reporters earlier this month.
Republicans yoked the tax and spending cuts into one bill largely to satisfy hardline House conservatives who were complaining that the tax plan dangerously inflated the federal deficit and debt.
But in choosing to pair the tax and spending cuts, the GOP conspicuously departed from its strategy for the tax cuts it passed under Presidents George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 and Trump in 2017. Each of those bills offered sugar without spinach: They cut taxes without reducing spending. The last time the GOP pursued tax and spending cuts in the same bill was in 1995, when the aggressive 'Republican Revolution' Congress led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich precipitated an intense fiscal battle with then-President Bill Clinton.
In the debates over the earlier GOP tax cuts, Democrats argued that the plans primarily benefited the rich and, by depleting federal revenues, would eventually force cuts in programs for average families. But by choosing to cut taxes and programs simultaneously, Republicans this year have eliminated any conjecture, allowing analysts to assess the plan's combined impact on families at different points on the income scale.
Those analyses have returned a consistent verdict on the bill's winners and losers. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the budget model developed by the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, found that families on the lowest rungs of the income ladder would lose more from the spending cuts than they would gain from the tax savings; the CBO calculated that most families earning up to about $76,000 annually would come out net losers from the bill. Middle-to upper middle-class families, both analyses found, would see relatively small net benefits. Only those at the top would see big gains: CBO calculated the top 10% of earners would average about $12,000 in additional annual income from the bill, while the Penn Wharton model found that the top 0.1% would net over $103,000 annually.
Kogan said that no previous legislation careened to such extremes on both ends. He's calculated that compared with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' the 1995 Gingrich budget sought deeper cuts in programs for the needy but didn't provide such generous tax breaks to the rich; the famous 1981 Reagan budget plan (which was separated into two bills) cut taxes more for the rich, but programs for the poor less. With bigger program cuts than Reagan and bigger tax cuts than Gingrich, Kogan says, this bill redistributes wealth up the income ladder more than either of them.
When congressional Republicans previously married tax and spending cuts into a single bill did not end well for them. In that 1995 confrontation, Clinton won the battle for public opinion, reviving his foundering presidency and propelling him toward an easy reelection in 1996. Clinton prevailed by stressing the argument Democrats are echoing today: Republicans are cutting programs that benefit average Americans to fund tax cuts for the rich.
As in 1995, the GOP budget plan is facing widespread public skepticism. Substantially more Americans said they opposed than supported the bill in recent national polls by the non-partisan Pew Research Center and KFF thinktank, as well as in Washington Post/Ipsos, Fox News, and Quinnipiac University surveys.
Though the Senate is considering changes to the House-passed legislation, both bills are built around the same two pillars: extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts for all earners and offsetting that cost primarily by cutting federal spending on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
Both of those pillars stand on shaky ground with the public. In the Washington Post/Ipsos survey, a majority of Americans opposed extending the tax cuts for those earning over $400,000 annually. Both that survey and the KFF poll also found that significant majorities opposed health care cuts that would cause a significant rise in the uninsured. Only about 1 in 5 in the KFF poll said they expected the bill to help the middle-class; half thought it would hurt average families.
The GOP's challenge in selling this package is even more complicated than in 1995 because of changes in their electoral coalition. Compared with that era, Republicans today are much more reliant on working-class voters without a four-year degree — not only the white voters in that category, but also increasingly the blue-collar minorities who provided Trump's most important gains in the 2024 election.
That means many more GOP voters than in Gingrich's time rely on federal safety net programs. Looking at people who have purchased health care through the ACA, KFF found that more identify as Republicans than Democrats. Sixty-four House Republicans represent districts where the share of adults on Medicaid exceeds the national average. Republicans hold 13 Senate seats across the 20 states that have insured the most people under the Medicaid expansion funded by the ACA — which is the principal target for both the House and Senate cuts. Medicaid funding is especially critical to hospitals in rural areas, which now vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Whit Ayres, a longtime Republican pollster, says that targeting federal health care programs for such large reductions dangerously ignores the changes in the GOP's electoral base since the days when fiscal hawks such as former House Speaker Paul Ryan set the party's fiscal agenda.
'The GOP coalition is dramatically different today than it was 10 years ago,' Ayres said. 'This looks like a bill that could have come out of a Paul Ryan House of Representatives rather than a Donald Trump House of Representatives.'
Neera Tanden, the former chief domestic policy adviser for former President Joe Biden and now the president of the Center for American Progress, frames the mismatch even more starkly: 'Republicans are testing the proposition that there is nothing they can do to working class people to make them lose their support,' she said.
Republicans may face particular vulnerability among the newest addition to their coalition: working-class minority voters without a college degree. The Washington Post/Ipsos, Pew and KFF polls all found them expressing much greater concern about the bill than non-college Whites, who have been more solidly cemented into the GOP base for decades. In the KFF poll, over four-fifths of minorities without a college degree said Medicaid was very important to their community and nearly three-fifths said it was very important to their own families — far more than the share of non-college Whites who said the same. In both the KFF and Pew surveys, more than three times as many of those blue-collar minorities said they expected the bill to hurt than to help them.
Against all these headwinds, Republicans have some potentially potent responses. The White House has reportedly shared private polling with congressional Republicans showing support for the bill's measures to end taxes on tips and overtime, and is also urging them to stress the plan's provisions punishing states that provide Medicaid to undocumented immigrants. In the KFF poll, two-thirds of Americans backed a work requirement for able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid, another central component of the GOP plan. Most voters were likewise receptive to the GOP case that reducing Medicaid spending on those adults would save money for the elderly, low-income children and people with disabilities.
Jason Cabel Roe, a Michigan-based Republican consultant, believes that it would have been better for the party to split the tax and spending cuts into separate bills, partly to make it harder for Democrats to link the two. But Roe believes public concern about the federal deficit and debt gives Republicans more leeway than Democrats believe to cut government programs — as long as the targets look justified.
'Our argument is we are going to get people off the dole who don't belong there … and if we are able to find the savings through that strategy, I think we can weather this line of attack from Democrats,' he said. 'If there are real stories of people losing their Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, then we have a problem .'
Yet as KFF President Drew Altman wrote last week, the KFF poll also found that many voters were moved by Democratic counter-arguments, such as pointing out that most Medicaid recipients are already working, disabled, or caring for a family member. Gourevitch and other Democratic strategists believe the party's enduring advantage on health care — one of the few issues on which the public consistently expresses more confidence in Democrats than Republicans — will give an advantage to their candidates in any campaign exchanges over the bill.
As Tanden pointed out, voters react to changes in health care policy more viscerally than most issues — a dynamic that has previously burned both parties. Revoking health insurance for millions of Americans would be a tough sell for the GOP at any point. But Republicans are creating a much more volatile compound by adding to the formula tax savings for the affluent that make the distribution of winners and losers in their plan unusually visible. 'They are playing with live bombs here,' Tanden said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

16 minutes ago

• Newsweek

War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force. Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties. Why It Matters The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation. Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers. The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. Getty What To Know Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded. The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. What People Are Saying Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." What Happens Next The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules. Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.

Yahoo

19 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Iran Stands Alone Against Trump and Israel, Stripped of Allies

(Bloomberg) -- Iran's leaders are discovering they're on their own against the US and Israel, without the network of proxies and allies that allowed them to project power in the Middle East and beyond. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports As the Islamic Republic confronts its most perilous moment in decades following the bombing of its nuclear facilities ordered by US President Donald Trump, Russia and China are sitting on the sidelines and offering only rhetorical support. Militia groups Iran has armed and funded for years are refusing or unable to enter the fight in support of their patron. After decades of being stuck in a game of fragile detente, the entire geopolitical order of the Middle East is being redone. The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel was only the beginning. It led to multiple conflicts and tested decades-long alliances. It offered Trump, on his return to power this year, a chance to do what no president before him had dared by attacking Iran so aggressively and directly. Since Israel started strikes on Iran on June 13, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken of goals beyond neutering Tehran's nuclear threat, even hinting at regime change. But the risk is that an isolated Iran could become more unpredictable with its once-steadfast allies keeping their distance. 'As Iran faces its most critical military test in decades, further tangible assistance from either Moscow or Beijing remains unlikely,' said Bloomberg Economics analysts including Adam Farrar and Dina Esfandiary. 'While both maintain bilateral strategic partnerships with Tehran, neither Russia nor China is a formal military ally, and neither is likely to provide significant military or economic aid due to their own limitations and broader strategic considerations.' Iran isn't getting any support, either, from the BRICS grouping of emerging markets that purports to want a new global order that's not dominated by Western nations. The organization — set up by Brazil, Russia, India and China and which Iran joined in early 2024 — has been silent over Israel and the US's attacks on the Islamic Republic. Iran signed a strategic cooperation treaty with Russia in January and it was a vital source of combat drones early in President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. However, Russian officials have made clear the pact includes no mutual-defense obligations and that Moscow has no intention of supplying Iran with weapons, even as they say Tehran hasn't asked for any. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters in Turkey on Sunday he plans to travel to Moscow to discuss the situation with Putin on Monday. He can expect warm words and little practical support. That's a far cry from 2015, when Russia joined Iran in sending forces to Syria to save the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad, which was eventually toppled by rebels last year. Moscow risks losing another key ally in the Middle East if the government in Tehran led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei falls. Yet while the Kremlin has condemned the Israeli and US attacks, Putin is distracted and stretched — militarily and economically — by his war in Ukraine. China, too, 'strongly' condemned the US strikes as a breach of international law. But it hasn't offered assistance to Iran, which sells some 90% of its oil exports to Beijing. Iran's Gulf neighbors urged restraint and warned of potentially devastating implications for the region if Iran retaliates against US assets in the Middle East. Nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates spent months trying to use their geopolitical and economic heft to bolster nuclear talks between the Americans and Iran. In the end, the talks have been overtaken by military power. Iran's proxy militant groups are mostly absent too. Hezbollah in Lebanon, hitherto the most potent member of Tehran's 'axis of resistance' was pummeled by Israeli forces last year, much as Hamas was. Israeli strikes on Assad's military in Syria, meanwhile, played a part in his government's collapse. Hezbollah still poses a threat and on Sunday the US ordered family members and non-emergency government personnel to leave Lebanon. Still, the group's not threatened to back Iran by firing on Israel, as it did right after Hamas' attack in 2023. The Houthis in Yemen are an exception and hours about the US strikes on Iran, they issued fresh threats against US commercial and naval ships. Yet they risk another American bombardment like that one Trump ordered before a truce with the group in May. The Europeans, meanwhile, are increasingly irrelevant, in terms of swaying Trump and Israel, and Tehran. The UK, France and Germany have historically held an important role in the Middle East. They represented the dominant economies in Europe. The first two were colonial powers in the region and in the case of Germany, given its Nazi past, there was a strong pro-Israel voice. Both the UK and France have had to handle a vocal voter constituency that was pro Palestinian and complicated their messaging. That was not always an easy needle to thread. The current UK government is led by Labour, whose legacy was damaged by Tony Blair's decision to join US President George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq in 2003. So for Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has finally wrested control of the country from Conservatives, there is no upside to supporting any US military involvement. Trump didn't seem to need it, and the UK was happy to stay out of it even though it has enough of a presence that it could have been useful. Europeans find themselves sidelined with little power to influence the outcome. At the Group of Seven summit, Trump put France's President Emmanuel Macron in his place for suggesting the US was working toward a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. That did not stop Macron from working the phones, but the harsh reality that has filtered through is that Europe has its own existential crisis much closer to home. It needs Trump to at least make a cameo in The Hague for a NATO summit on Tuesday and Wednesday. The organization's leaders want assurances the US post-World War II commitment to stop Russian expansionism still stands. Europe has provided back channels for Iran in the past. In a climate where Europe and the US aren't working together on Iran, it's possible some valuable diplomatic signaling may be lost. That's one side effect of the US going it alone and of Europe being a bit player, as the crisis in the Middle East deepens. --With assistance from Eric Martin. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

CNN

20 minutes ago

• CNN

Start your week smart: US strikes Iran, Pride rollbacks, Tesla robotaxis, NATO summit, Bezos' wedding

If everything goes according to plan, Tesla's long-awaited robotaxi service will roll out today in Austin, Texas. Tesla's CEO Elon Musk, who's been talking about robotaxis for years, has cautioned that the launch date isn't set in stone. Musk, of course, is also CEO of SpaceX — and has said he hopes to land humans on Mars by 2026. That timeline may need an adjustment after his monster Starship rocket exploded last week. Here's what else you need to know to start your week smart. • The US entered into conflict with Iran on Saturday after President Donald Trump ordered warplanes to drop bombs on three nuclear sites inside the country, thrusting him squarely into an escalating Middle East conflict even as he holds out hope the matter can be resolved diplomatically. Follow CNN's full coverage here.• Bodies of three hostages — an IDF soldier and two civilians — recovered from Gaza• Record-breaking heat will impact millions in US This June marked the 50th anniversary of LGBTQ Pride celebrations in the nation's capital. In Washington, DC, and across the nation, Pride was the usual affair — parades, music, rainbow decorations — but some felt it was in some ways overshadowed by President Donald Trump's administration, which advocates say has rolled back rights for LGBTQ Americans. Ahead of this year's Pride Month, the Kennedy Center canceled a week's worth of events celebrating LGBTQ rights. The White House did not issue a Pride Month proclamation this year — or during Trump's first administration, reversing a tradition that started in 1999. 1️⃣ Pride and protest: Earlier this month, Washington, DC, hosted World Pride 2025, an international festival celebrating the LGBTQ community. The event included a parade and free concerts plus a march on the National Mall. 🏳️‍🌈 Icon spotlight: Harvey Milk was the first openly gay male politician elected to San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in 1977. The Trump administration ordered Milk's name be stripped from a US Naval Ship that had been named after him in 2019. Milk served in the Korean War and was forced to resign from the Navy due to his sexuality. 2️⃣ Brands stay quiet: Once common during Pride Month, LGBTQ-themed merchandise, rainbow decorations and social media campaigns were scaled back or silenced this year as some corporations avoid provoking the Trump administration, which plans to investigate companies with DEI programs. 3️⃣ Youth support and rights: The Trump administration announced last week the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline's specialized services for LGBTQ youth will no longer be in operation starting July 17. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors. 📸 In pictures: As a gay teen, his dad didn't support him. Now the pair are bringing drag shows to rural towns. 4️⃣ 'We're not afraid': CNN spoke with trans people over the age of 60 about their lives and what they've learned from watching the battle for trans rights unfold. Some say after watching decades of progress, the current moment feels like a step back. Others said they feel resilient. 5️⃣ Freedom under fire: With the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, some advocates worry its decision that ruled same-sex marriage as a fundamental right could be next. Southern Baptists recently called for Obergefell v. Hodges to be overturned, as well as a ban on gay marriage. Get '5 Things' in your inbox If your day doesn't start until you're up to speed on the latest headlines, then let us introduce you to your new favorite morning fix. Sign up here for the '5 Things' newsletter. TuesdayThe 2025 NATO summit will begin in the Netherlands amid the backdrop of US strikes on Iran and the ongoing war in Ukraine. One item on the table is whether all alliance members will agree to a broad defense spending target of 5% of gross domestic product, a key demand made by President Trump, who will attend the summit. Trump has frequently criticized NATO members for not spending enough money on defense and has threatened to leave the alliance. New York City will hold a Democratic mayoral primary. Eleven candidates are on the ballot, including former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a pack of several progressive challengers led by Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. Meanwhile, in Venice, the stage is set for the highly anticipated nuptials between multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos and his bride-to-be, Lauren Sanchez. Three days of celebrations will reportedly kick off on Bezos' $500-million superyacht, Koru, which will be anchored in the Venice lagoon. WednesdayThe Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to vote on President Trump's nominee to lead the FAA. During a hearing earlier this month, airline executive Bryan Bedford was grilled by senators on critical safety-related issues, including the required hours needed for pilots, the outdated air traffic control system and ongoing problems at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. ThursdayJune 26 marks 10 years since the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage across the US. FridayThe Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda will sign a peace agreement in Washington, DC, that aims to end the fighting in eastern Congo. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will attend the signing ceremony. 🎧 Cuomo comeback?In this episode of the 'One Thing' podcast, CNN's Gloria Pazmino previews Tuesday's Democratic mayoral primary in New York City, where former governor Andrew Cuomo will attempt a political comeback. Listen here. Prev Next 📸 Check out more images from the week that was, curated by the CNN Photo team. 👀 At a glanceIn the NBA Finals, the Indiana Pacers and the Oklahoma City Thunder play a winner-take-all Game 7 tonight in Oklahoma City. In Game 6 last week, the Pacers beat the Thunder 108-91 to tie the series at 3-3. And the 2025 NBA Draft is set for Wednesday. The Dallas Mavericks won the draft lottery in May, securing the coveted top overall pick and the right to possibly select Duke University star forward Cooper Flagg. 📺 TV + streamingThe fourth season of FX's Emmy-winning show 'The Bear' arrives on Hulu on Wednesday. And the third and final season of 'Squid Game' arrives on Netflix on Friday. 🍿 In theaters'F1: The Movie' stars Brad Pitt as a washed-up Formula 1 racing driver coaxed out of retirement to mentor a rookie driver played by Damson Idris. 'F1' opens on Friday. 🧠 Looking for a challenge to start your week? Take CNN's weekly news quiz to see how much you remember! So far, 30% of readers got eight or more questions right. How will you fare? 🎶 'Stonewall'Saturday marks the 56th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, a watershed moment for the LGBTQ+ pride movement in New York City. This song was released to commemorate Stonewall's 50th. (Click here to view) 5 Things Sunday was edited and produced by CNN's Tricia Escobedo and Dan Wine.