Markus Andrews

Amid efforts to cut wasteful federal spending, billionaire Elon Musk recently turned his focus to people over age 100 receiving Social Security benefits.
Yet some experts say it’s unlikely there’s massive benefit fraud among that age cohort.

Elon Musk speaks as one of his young sons and President Donald Trump listen in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., Feb. 11, 2025.
Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

As Elon Musk continues to look for ways to cut federal spending through the Department of Government Efficiency, he has raised questions as to just how long some Social Security beneficiaries have been receiving payments.
With a “cursory examination” of Social Security, “we’ve got people in there that are 150 years old now,” Musk said during a Feb. 11 CNN interview.

In recent days, he re-upped those claims on social media platform X. “Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security,” Musk posted on Feb. 16.
Just because the Social Security Administration has millions of people in its database who are very elderly and not marked as deceased does not necessarily mean benefits are fraudulently being paid, said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, a public policy research organization.
“The amount of fraud is likely miniscule,” Nowrasteh said.

When asked for comment, the White House provided an email statement from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt citing a 2024 investigation that found the Social Security Administration made about $71.8 billion in improper payments out of almost $8.6 trillion in benefits paid from fiscal years 2015 to 2022.
Notably, deceased beneficiaries were one of multiple reasons that may prompt improper payments, according to the report from the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General.

“The Social Security Administration is now working to find even more waste, fraud and abuse in the Administration’s whole-of-government effort to protect American taxpayers,” Leavitt said in the emailed statement.
This week, acting Social Security commissioner Michelle King stepped down over reported concerns over DOGE access to sensitive data at the agency. In a new statement released Wednesday, Lee Dudek, who is now acting commissioner, said the agency plans to prioritize transparency and protect benefits and information.
“The reported data are people in our records with a Social Security number who do not have a date of death associated with their record,” Dudek said. “These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.”
The Social Security Administration did not respond to requests for further comment.

Data doesn’t influence benefit payments, expert says

In recent days, Musk has shared data on the numbers of Social Security beneficiaries by age on X. Experts say the data likely came from the Social Security Administration’s electronic file of personally identifiable information on everyone with a Social Security number, known formally as Numident.
Numident is an electronic file that has personally identifiable information — such as name, date of birth and other details — for every individual who has been issued a Social Security number, according to a 2023 Social Security Office of the Inspector General report focused on Social Security number holders ages 100 and up.
The Social Security Administration inputs death information it receives from various sources on Numident, according to the report. From there, the agency uses Numident to create a full file of death information, the Death Master File, that is shared with other agencies that pay benefits to help prevent and detect fraud.
In the 2023 report, the Office of the Inspector General found about 18.9 million Social Security number holders were born in 1920 or earlier and had no death information on their Numident records. However, Census Bureau data estimates at the time of the review showed only about 86,000 individuals living in the U.S. were age 100 or older.

If a death is not properly recorded, that can interfere with efforts to prevent and identify fraud by both federal and private entities, the OIG report said.
Just because Numident records are out of date doesn’t influence the Social Security Administration’s payments, according to a former Social Security Administration employee.
“The payment records that send 70 million checks payments a month aren’t driven by the Numident,” the former Social Security Administration employee said. “To correlate the two is just manipulative.”

For decades, the agency had reached out to beneficiaries who are over 100 years old, who have not recently used Medicare, to verify their identities, the former Social Security employee said.
“To say, ‘Oh, well, there’s 150-year-old people,’ that’s just silly,” the former Social Security Administration employee said. “That particular operation over the years did yield cases where there was fraud being committed, but not a lot of it.”

Undocumented immigrants pay into program

Individuals over age 100 are more susceptible to having their Social Security numbers fraudulently used by undocumented immigrants for work rather than having their benefits stolen, Nowrasteh said.
“A good number of these Social Security numbers are being used by illegal immigrants to work and pay taxes,” Nowrasteh said.
Importantly, that likely means more money coming into Social Security through payroll taxes than leaving the program through benefit payments, according to Nowrasteh.
In tax years 2016 to 2020, employers and individuals received about $8.5 billion in wages, tips and self-employment income from 139,211 Social Security numbers attributed to individuals ages 100 and up, according to the 2023 SSA OIG report that looked at number holders ages 100 and up.
“Probably zero of them are working,” Nowrasteh said of the data. Instead, that revenue into the program is likely coming from undocumented workers who won’t receive benefits, he said.
“Because they’re illegal immigrants, they don’t have access to the benefits on the back end when they retire,” Nowrasteh said.
More from Personal Finance:Ending taxes on Social Security benefits would help high-income householdsFollowing Social Security Fairness Act, beneficiaries wait to see higher benefits’Keep your hands off our Social Security,’ lawmakers warn amid DOGE budget cuts
Immigrants consumed 21% less welfare and entitlement benefits than native born Americans per capita, or per person, as of 2022, according to new research Nowrasteh co-authored.
If the administration cracks down on payroll taxes coming into Social Security using false numbers, “then it might actually worsen the fiscal soundness of the program and make it insolvent sooner,” Nowrasteh said.
The Social Security Administration relies on ongoing payroll taxes to pay benefits. To supplement those payments, the agency also draws from money set aside in trust funds. Because those trust funds are running low, just 83% of both retirement and disability benefits may be payable starting in 2035, Social Security’s trustees projected last year.
It remains to be seen whether Congress will act sooner to prevent those changes. More

When selling your main home, there’s a tax break that shields up to $250,000 of profits for single filers and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. But you need to meet certain rules.
An increasing number of home sellers are exceeding those thresholds, according to a 2024 report from CoreLogic.
However, it’s possible to increase your “basis,” or the home’s original purchase price, to reduce your gain, experts say.

Martin Barraud | Ojo Images | Getty Images

As U.S. home equity climbs, owners are more likely to face capital gains taxes from selling property. But a lesser-known tax strategy could help shrink your bill, experts say.
When selling your main home, there’s a special tax break that shields up to $250,000 of profits for single filers and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. However, you need to meet certain rules.

An increasing number of home sellers are exceeding those thresholds, according to a 2024 report from real estate data firm CoreLogic. Nearly 8% of U.S. homes sold in 2023 exceeded the capital gains tax limit of $500,000 for married couples, up from about 3% in 2019, the report found.
More from Personal Finance:These red flags can trigger an IRS tax audit, experts sayCredit card debt hits record $1.21 trillion, New York Fed research showsWhat shutting down the Education Department means for students and borrowers
Those percentages were even higher in high-cost states like Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and and Washington, according to the CoreLogic report.  
Exceeding the $250,000 and $500,000 exclusions is “becoming more common,” said Tommy Lucas, a certified financial planner and enrolled agent at Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo in Orlando, Florida.
Home sale profits above the $250,000 or $500,000 thresholds are subject to capital gains taxes of 0%, 15% or 20%, depending on your taxable income.

Increase your ‘basis’ to reduce profits

Many home sellers don’t realize they can reduce capital gains by increasing their “basis,” or the home’s original purchase price, according to Mark Baran, managing director at financial services firm CBIZ’s national tax office. 
You can increase your basis by adding “capital improvements,” such as renovations, adding a new roof, exterior upgrades or replaced systems.  
Your “adjusted basis” is generally the cost of buying your home plus any capital improvements made while you own the property.
“That adds up over time and can bring them fully within the [$250,000 or $500,000 capital gains] exclusion,” Baran said.
However, you cannot add home repairs and maintenance, such as fixing leaks, holes, cracks or replacing broken hardware, according to the IRS.

You also can reduce your home sale profit by adding fees and closing costs from the purchase and sale of the home, according to Lucas.
The IRS says some of these expenses could include:

Title fees
Charges for utility installation
Legal and recording fees
Surveys
Transfer taxes
Title insurance
Balances owed by the seller

“Maybe that gets you an extra few thousand” to reduce the profit, Lucas added. More

A U.S. appeals court blocked the Biden administration’s student loan relief plan known as SAVE.
The move will likely lead to higher monthly payments for millions of borrowers.

Former U.S. President Joe Biden speaks about student loan debt relief at Madison Area Technical College in Madison, Wisconsin, on April 8, 2024.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday blocked the Biden administration’s student loan relief plan known as SAVE, a move that will likely lead to higher monthly payments for millions of borrowers.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the seven Republican-led states that filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education’s plan. The states had argued that former President Joe Biden lacked the authority to establish the student loan relief plan.

The GOP states argued that Biden, with SAVE, was essentially trying to find a roundabout way to forgive student debt after the Supreme Court blocked his sweeping debt cancellation plan in June 2023.
SAVE, or the Saving on a Valuable Education plan, came with two key provisions that the lawsuits targeted. It had lower monthly payments than any other federal student loan repayment plan, and it led to quicker debt erasure for those with small balances.
Implementing SAVE could cost as much as $475 billion over a decade, an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model found. That made it a target for Republicans, who argued that taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize the loan payments of those who have benefited from a higher education.
However, consumer advocates say most families need to borrow to send their children to college today and that they require more affordable ways to repay their debt. Research shows student loans make it harder for people to start businesses, buy a house and even have children.
The court’s ruling comes at the same time that House Republicans are floating proposals that could raise federal student loan bills for millions of borrowers.

The average student loan borrower could pay nearly $200 a month more if the GOP’s plans to reshape student loan repayments succeed, according to an early estimate by The Institute for College Access & Success. Republican lawmakers want to use the extra revenue to fund President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.
How will the end of the SAVE plan affect you financially? If you’re willing to share your experience for an upcoming story, contact me at [email protected].

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

President Donald Trump said he plans to fulfill his campaign promise to eliminate income taxes on Social Security benefit income.
A new report found the change would reduce U.S. government revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase the federal debt by 7% by 2054.
Meanwhile, high-earning households would benefit the most, the report found.

Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign event at Harrah’s Cherokee Center on August 14, 2024 in Asheville, North Carolina. 
Grant Baldwin | Getty Images

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump touted a plan to eliminate income taxes on Social Security benefits.
Now that he’s in the White House, Trump administration officials told CNBC.com last week that the president “doubles down” on that promise.

A bill to eliminate those levies — the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act — was recently reintroduced in the House.
Yet, nixing taxes on Social Security benefits may reduce U.S. government revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase the federal debt by 7% by 2054, according to a new analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan, research-based project at the University of Pennsylvania.
For some high-income households, the policy change may result in gains of up to $100,000 over their lifetimes, the research also found. Yet, individuals under age 30 — and particularly people who have not yet been born — may face the largest losses as the federal debt increases and incentives to work and save for retirement decline, it found.
For beneficiaries who have paid into the program for their entire working lives, there is a sense that their benefits should not be taxed, said Kent Smetters, professor of business economics and public policy at Penn’s Wharton School.

How Social Security benefits are taxed

When Social Security reform was passed by Congress in 1983, benefits became subject to taxes for the first time. Then in 1993, lawmakers added a second taxation tier.

Today, beneficiaries who have what is known as “combined income” below $25,000 if they file taxes individually — or $32,000 if they are married and file jointly — generally pay no taxes on their Social Security benefits, the Penn Wharton Budget Model notes.
Combined income is the sum of adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of Social Security benefits.
Individual beneficiaries may pay taxes on up to 50% of their benefits on combined income between $25,000 and $34,000, or for married couples with between $32,000 and $44,000.
More from Personal Finance:’Keep your hands off our Social Security,’ lawmakers warn amid DOGE budget cutsHere are changes Americans would make to close Social Security’s funding gapWhy retirees may feel the 2025 Social Security COLA isn’t enough
Up to 85% of the benefits would be subject to taxation if they have more than $34,000 in combined income; for married couples, that applies if their combined income is more than $44,000.
Those thresholds are not adjusted for inflation, which means more people over time have become subject to taxes on their Social Security benefits.

How taxes on benefits may be eliminated

Any changes to Social Security would require a bipartisan consensus from both the House and the Senate.
Both congressional chambers overwhelmingly voted recently to push through the Social Security Fairness Act, a new law that ends benefit reductions for individuals who also receive pensions from work that did not include payment of Social Security payroll taxes.
That change is estimated to cost almost $200 billion over 10 years and move the Social Security Trust Fund insolvency six months closer, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Before the change, Social Security’s trustees projected the program’s combined funds may run out in 2035, at which point 83% of retirement, disability and other benefits will be payable.
Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits would be more expensive — reducing revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years — according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, provided the policy change is implemented in 2025. Social Security’s trust fund depletion date would move two years closer, the analysis found.

Because lawmakers are already dealing with a “really alarming budget situation,” there will be some “pretty strict limits on the tax cuts that would be allowed,” said William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation.
In particular, if Republican efforts to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are successful, that will cost about $4 trillion, he said. That tax package, which was originally passed in 2017, excludes Social Security.
That doesn’t leave much room for exempting Social Security income from taxes or many of the other “more expensive” ideas that Trump mentioned on the campaign trail, McBride said.
Importantly, changes to Social Security cannot be enacted through the reconciliation process, which may be used to fast-track other budget and tax measures.

Future generations pick up the bill

If taxes on Social Security benefits are eliminated, those at the top of the household income distribution would see the largest tax reductions, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That would range from annual gains of $1,625 to $2,450 in 2026, and it would increase to $4,075 to $5,080 by 2054.
Lower-income earners would see much smaller gains, with those in the second and third quartiles receiving a bump of between $15 and $340 in 2026 and between $275 and $1,730 in 2054, Wharton’s analysis finds.
While all future generations would be worse off, the pinch would be more pronounced for those born further in the future, according to the analysis.
Another proposal in Congress has likewise called for eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits while also requiring high earners to pay more taxes into the program to help mitigate the benefit increases.
However, the concern with those changes is that while older people would see higher benefits, it would put financial pressure on younger generations, Smetters said.
Economists often refer to this as implicit debt, where an intergenerational imbalance causes future generations to be saddled with higher costs.
“Who pays for that benefit is actually younger people,” Smetters said. “They now pay higher taxes to pay for that.” More

Inflation and high interest rates are still taking a toll, but more Americans were able to put money in an emergency fund over the past year, according to a recent report.
Most financial pros recommend having at least six months’ worth of expenses set aside, or more if you are the sole breadwinner in your family or in business for yourself.

While inflation and high interest rates are still taking a toll on consumers, more Americans are able to set aside money in an emergency fund, according to a recent report.
This year, 30% of adults said they have more emergency savings now compared to one year ago, the report by Bankrate found.

More than half of Americans also said they have more emergency savings than credit card debt, an improvement from previous years.
“The number of households reporting more savings than one year ago has been steadily increasing since we began measuring it in 2022, and for the first time exceeds those reporting less savings than the prior year,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate. “This is evidence that as the pace of inflation has slowed, it has enabled more Americans to make progress in building, or rebuilding, their emergency savings.”
More from Personal Finance:Here’s the inflation breakdown for January 2025Wholesale egg prices have ‘blown way past’ record highs1 in 3 adults have ‘layoff anxiety’ — here’s how to combat it
Soaring inflation in the wake of the pandemic made it harder to make ends meet. At the same time, the Federal Reserve’s most aggressive interest rate-hiking cycle in four decades made it costlier to borrow.
Although inflation has eased significantly, it’s still above the Federal Reserve’s 2% goal.

“Just like consumers, the Federal Reserve wants to see further cooling of inflation,” said Mark Hamrick,  Bankrate’s senior economic analyst.
Fed officials are watching closely as they contemplate their next monetary policy moves. The central bank cut its benchmark rate by a full percentage point in the second half of 2024, but policymakers have been advocating a more cautious pace ahead as they evaluate the overall strength of the labor market and President Donald Trump’s policy ramifications.
In remarks before the Senate Banking Committee last week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said the Fed doesn’t need to move quickly to ease monetary policy.
“With our policy stance now significantly less restrictive than it had been and the economy remaining strong, we do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance,” he said.
Shortly after taking office, Trump said he would “demand” that interest rates come down “immediately.” However, in subsequent remarks, Trump said he agreed with the decision to keep rates in place.

Why an emergency fund is critical

Having an emergency savings account is key for weathering any sort of financial shock. Research shows that having as little as a few hundred dollars set aside greatly reduces the risk that a family will miss a rent or mortgage payment or be forced to skip medical care.
In addition to helping avoid financial hardship in the short term, emergency savings can also protect long-term financial security. 
According to research by the AARP Public Policy Institute, 53% of U.S. households do not have an emergency savings account, including half of people over age 50, which makes it more likely they will tap their retirement accounts in a crisis.

How to build an emergency savings account

For now, savers can make the most of higher rates by setting some money aside in a high-yield savings account.
“While the Fed putting the brakes on interest rate cuts stinks for those with debt, it is welcome news for savers,” said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.
In recent years, top-yielding online savings accounts have offered the best returns in more than a decade and still pay nearly 5% — up from around 1% in 2022, according to Bankrate.
“Returns on high-yield savings accounts have fallen from their record levels as the Fed has moved to lower rates. However, as the Fed pauses, that decline should slow as well,” Schulz said. “Your best move is to keep building that emergency fund.”
Most financial experts recommend having at least three to six months’ worth of expenses set aside, or more if you are the sole breadwinner in your family or in business for yourself.
“While we don’t have any idea what the economy will look like in three months, six months or a year or more, we absolutely know that building a stable financial foundation today will help you better weather whatever storm might be ahead,” Schulz said.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

The Social Security Fairness Act was signed into law in January following overwhelming bipartisan support.
The new law repeals provisions that previously reduced Social Security benefits for some individuals who also received pension income from work where they did not pay into Social Security.
The Social Security Administration has said it could take “more than one year” to process the benefit changes for the over 3.2 million individuals affected.

President Joe Biden after he signed the Social Security Fairness Act at the White House on Jan. 5 in Washington, D.C. 
Kent Nishimura | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The biggest changes to Social Security in years were signed into law on Jan. 5.
For more than 3.2 million individuals, that will mean bigger benefit checks. And in some cases, the change will qualify them for Social Security benefits.

The new law, the Social Security Fairness Act, repeals two provisions that previously reduced Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pension income based on work where employers were not required to withhold Social Security payroll taxes.
They were the Windfall Elimination Provision, which was enacted in 1983, and the Government Pension Offset, which was signed into law in 1977. They were federal laws that reduced Social Security benefits for people who received pensions from noncovered employment. Both were repealed by the Social Security Fairness Act.
Among those affected include certain teachers, firefighters and police officers, federal employees, and workers covered by a foreign social security system.
Benefit increases may range from “very little” to more than $1,000 per month, according to the Social Security Administration.
Those increases apply to future monthly checks, as well as retroactive benefits payable since January 2024.

The Social Security Administration “expects that it could take more than one year to adjust benefits and pay all retroactive benefits,” the agency says on its website.
Nevertheless, advocates who fought for the change for years — some of whom will see their own benefits increase — say the signing of the bill was a victory, even as many beneficiaries face an indefinite wait for the extra money.

‘It’s going to take some time,’ a former teacher said of the changes

Roger Boudreau, a 75-year-old former English teacher and president of the Rhode Island American Federation of Teachers retirees chapter, had been to the White House before through his work in union activism over the past 50 years.
But witnessing the signing of the Social Security Fairness Act in January was the “highlight of my life,” he said.
When Boudreau dies, he hopes his role as a founding member of the National WEP/GPO Repeal Task Force is included in his obituary.
“It was such an incredibly important piece of legislation that affected so many people who’ve been so deeply wronged for so many years,” Boudreau said. (To be sure, many retirement policy experts oppose the new policy.)
Boudreau estimates he personally has been losing about $5,000 per year in retirement due to a penalty of about 40% on his earned benefits for the past decade.
More from Personal Finance:’Keep your hands off our Social Security,’ lawmakers warn amid DOGE budget cutsHere are changes Americans would make to close Social Security’s funding gapWhy retirees may feel the 2025 Social Security COLA isn’t enough
Boudreau taught for 30 years on a variety of subjects including world and British literature and earned a pension toward retirement.
To supplement his income, he took on a variety of extra jobs where he paid into Social Security, working as a taxi driver, selling swimming pools and helping at bakeries over the holidays.
“When I started teaching in 1971, my salary was $7,000 [a year],” Boudreau said. “I had an infant child. If I had two, I would have been eligible for food stamps.”
In addition to the extra work while teaching, he also paid into Social Security when he worked in high school and college. If Boudreau had two more years of earnings, he would have been able to escape the penalty to his benefits, he said.
Now, he’s waiting on the Social Security Administration to find out how large his benefit increases will be.
“We understand that it’s going to take some time,” said Boudreau, who also serves as a task force liaison to the American Federation of Teachers.
In the meantime, the group is advising its retirees to make appointments with their local Social Security office to make sure their information is up to date.

Firefighter hoped benefits would help in retirement

Carl Jordan, a retired Canton, Ohio, fire captain, first found out his Social Security benefits would be reduced when he looked into retiring.
The reductions were a surprise to Jordan, who over a 33-year career started as a firefighter and worked his way up to serve as a medic and finally a captain.
While he earned a pension from that work, he also paid into Social Security through other work. He started as a phlebotomist working in blood donation and then trained as a apheresis technician to collect blood products for the treatment of cancer and other diseases.
“The whole reason for me working the second job was it contributed to the community and it also aided me in taking care of my family at the time,” Jordan said.
“Firefighter wages weren’t that great, and I had hoped that Social Security would supplement my retirement income when I got there,” he said.

Today, Jordan, 73, estimates the reductions have cost him about 2½ years on his mortgage, or around $27,000 excluding interest.
The extra Social Security benefit money will help him pay off that mortgage a little sooner than expected, as well as pay for home improvements, he said.
Still, he doesn’t know exactly how much more benefits he will receive.
Jordan, who attended the January bill signing in Washington, D.C., spoke with a Social Security administrator there who said they could not provide more information on timing or the amount of benefit increases. A month later, he is still waiting for more information from the agency.
Nevertheless, Jordan said he was proud to witness a change he never expected to see in his lifetime, even after advocating for it for almost 16 years.
“To be there representing the profession that I had spent my life serving was an experience everyone should have,” Jordan said.

18-year-old lobbied on behalf of his grandmother

Eliseo Jimenez, who walked from Lubbock, Texas to Washington, DC, to discuss Social Security issues with government officials, leaves after being introduced by President Joe Biden during a signing ceremony for the Social Security Fairness Act at the White House. 
Chris Kleponis | Afp | Getty Images

At 18 years old, Eliseo Jimenez of Lubbock, Texas, may be the youngest to have lobbied for the Social Security Fairness Act.
His grandmother, a former teacher, had to rely mostly on her own pension as her source of income before the new law. Other family members who work in law enforcement were also affected by the provisions.
To call attention to the need for change, Jimenez last summer spent 40 days walking from Texas to Washington, D.C. Because he was under 18 at the time, he was not able to check into hotels or motels on his own, which forced him to sleep outside for several nights.
His efforts helped bring attention to the issue, he said.
“I had a lot of people email me and call me, supporting me and supporting the bill itself,” Jimenez said.
Last month, Jimenez returned to Washington, D.C., again, this time to witness the signing of the Social Security Fairness Act. At the event, then President Joe Biden led a chorus of other lawmakers and attendees to sing “Happy Birthday” to Jimenez. It was “pretty cool,” he said.
Since the changes became law, he has heard from his grandmother, neighbors and residents from other states like Virginia and Tennessee who are affected.
“They said it’s like amazing,” Jimenez said. “It’s life-changing.”
The win has inspired Jimenez, a high school senior who plans to attend college next year, to keep pushing for Social Security reform. He plans to complete another walk in Texas next month to call attention to the issue.
“I want to keep on being involved,” Jimenez said. “I want to keep on advocating for it.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

Inflation worries, tariffs under the Trump administration and earnings season could continue to keep the stock market volatile and rattle investor sentiment.
Investors looking for attractive stock picks should focus on the ability of a company to navigate ongoing uncertainties and deliver strong returns over the long term. To this end, recommendations of top Wall Street analysts can help people make the right investment decisions, as they are based on in-depth analysis and thorough research.

With that in mind, here are three stocks favored by the Street’s top pros, according to TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.
Pinterest
This week’s first stock pick is image sharing and social media platform Pinterest (PINS). The company impressed investors with its solid fourth-quarter results and highlighted that it marked its first billion-dollar revenue quarter. Moreover, Pinterest’s global monthly active users grew 11% year over year to 553 million.
Following the Q4 print, Evercore analyst Mark Mahaney reiterated a buy rating on PINS stock and raised the price target to $50 from $43, noting the spike in the stock following better-than-feared results.
Mahaney observed that the sentiment heading into Q4 results was very low for Pinterest, especially around the Q1 2025 revenue outlook, given that the company faced significantly tougher comparisons. However, Pinterest not only surpassed the Street’s Q4 revenue and EBITDA estimates by 1% and 6%, respectively, but issued a top-line growth outlook that indicated an only one percentage point deceleration (excluding forex) on a 10 percentage point tougher comparison, noted the analyst.
Additionally, Mahaney highlighted that after Q1 2025, Pinterest will see structurally easier comparisons for the balance of the year. The analyst also pointed out that unlike other ad companies he covers, Pinterest doesn’t have significant political exposure. Consequently, this implies that there is a possibility of PINS delivering consistent revenue growth acceleration through FY25, which Mahaney believes would be a key catalyst for the stock.  

“Longer term, it appears PINS is seeing a snowballing impact of multiple product cycles that should power mid to-high teens % Revenue growth (ex-FX) for the foreseeable future,” said Mahaney.
Mahaney ranks No. 24 among more than 9,300 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 64% of the time, delivering an average return of 29.1%. See Pinterest Hedge Fund Activity on TipRanks.
Monday.com
We move to workplace management software provider Monday.com (MNDY). The company recently reported better-than-expected fourth-quarter results. Monday.com attributed its performance to product innovation and its focus on go-to-market execution. Management is optimistic about driving further demand by leveraging artificial intelligence (AI).
In reaction to the Q4 results, JPMorgan analyst Pinjalim Bora reaffirmed a buy rating on MNDY stock and increased the price target to $400 from $350. The analyst noted the company’s solid performance, saying that it surpassed the consensus estimates for key metrics in Q4 2024, following a muted performance in the previous quarter.
The analyst noted that the company’s 2025 revenue outlook of over 26% growth at the mid-point in constant currency surpassed the firm’s expectations and perhaps all buy-side expectations. Bora thinks that demand in the U.S. remains healthy and bounced back from a decline in September, while the demand in Europe continues to be uneven, though it has stabilized relative to November.
Bora thinks that MNDY offers a unique opportunity over the medium term, as it transitions from a collaborative work management platform into a multi-product story. The analyst noted that MNDY has “a solid opportunity to play a central role around Agentic AI workflow around its customers over time.”
Overall, Bora thinks that Monday.com stands out compared to its rivals, thanks to strong execution in a choppy macro environment. The analyst views MNDY as a multi-year compounder, offering a lot of value to long-term investors.
Bora ranks No. 541 among more than 9,300 analysts tracked by TipRanks. The analyst’s ratings have been successful 64% of the time, delivering an average return of 15.2%. See Monday.com Stock Charts on TipRanks.
Amazon
E-commerce and cloud computing giant Amazon (AMZN) is this week’s third pick. The company delivered better-than-anticipated results for the fourth quarter of 2024. However, it issued disappointing guidance for the first quarter of 2025, citing forex headwinds.
In reaction to the Q4 earnings report, Mizuho analyst James Lee reiterated a buy rating on AMZN stock with a price target of $285. The analyst contended that while Amazon issued a subdued outlook and announced a huge increase in capital expenditure, its margins surpassed expectations and the cloud business AWS (Amazon Web Services) fared better than its peers.
Commenting on the elevated capex, Lee stated that management seems very comfortable with the significant rise in investments. This is because they see signs of robust demand and expect a rapid decline in computing costs due to a shift to custom ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) and AI model training innovations, which should fuel an acceleration in AI adoption.
Meanwhile, Lee expects Amazon’s retail business to benefit from its redesigned inbound network, expanding local delivery centers and robotic automation.
“Despite a soft start to 2025, we believe AMZN’s structural story remains unchanged,” said Lee. AMZN stock remains a top pick for Mizuho.
Lee ranks No. 191 among more than 9,300 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 63% of the time, delivering an average return of 15.5%. See Amazon Ownership Structure on TipRanks. More

Trump has launched a broadside against the wind industry, pausing new leases for offshore projects and halting new permits pending a review.
The order has had an immediate impact and puts at risk a pipeline of projects on the East Coast that could power millions of U.S. households.
Some Northeast states don’t have viable alternatives to offshore wind right now, and the order could create grid reliability issues in the future, analysts say.

A view of the turbines at Orsted’s offshore wind farm near Nysted, Denmark, September 4, 2023. 
Tom Little | Reuters

President Donald Trump promised to unleash U.S. energy dominance, but his sweeping executive order targeting wind power puts a pipeline of projects at risk that would generate enough electricity for millions of American homes.
The order Trump issued on his first day in office indefinitely paused new offshore wind leases in U.S. coastal waters and halted new permits pending the completion of a review. The order jeopardizes proposed projects on the East Coast that have not yet secured permits totaling 32 gigawatts of power, according to data from the consulting firm Aurora Energy Research.

“At the moment, it’s really hard to see how any of these projects will be able to move forward,” said Artem Abramov, head of new energies research at the consultancy Rystad. Like Aurora, Rystad estimates that around 30 gigawatts of projects on the U.S. East Coast are at risk.
Those projects, if realized, would provide enough combined power for more than 12 million homes in the U.S., according a CNBC analysis of data from the Energy Information Administration. The order is not expected to impact projects under construction totaling about 5 gigawatts, according to Aurora.
Trump has abandoned commitments made during the Biden administration to fight climate change, withdrawing the U.S. for a second time from the Paris agreement. He has focused on boosting fossil fuel production, opening U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas leasing on the same day he withdrew those waters for wind.
Trump’s order will jeopardize the efforts of states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast to transition away from fossil fuels and decarbonize their electric grid, Abramov said. New York, New Jersey and Virginia, for example, have ambitious clean energy goals adopted at the state level. But they are too far north to rely on solar with battery for power, Abramov said.
“If you want to achieve the future where the power generation in New York or New Jersey or Virginia is completely fossil free, if that’s the ultimate goal, there are not so many alternatives to offshore wind,” Abramov said.

The order could ultimately force states to rely more on carbon-emitting natural gas, according to Rystad and Aurora. But it is virtually impossible for a state like New York to meet its climate goals and ensure an adequate energy supply, particularly downstate in the New York City metro area, without offshore wind, said Julia Hoos, who heads Aurora’s U.S. East division.
Power projects waiting in line to connect to the electric grid in downstate New York through 2027 are almost entirely wind and transmission, Hoos said.
“There is virtually no possibility to bring online new gas in the next 18 to 24 months, unless there’s a significant reform or there’s some sort of fast track to bring online that gas, so you really can run into reliability issues,” Hoos said.
But more natural gas generation will likely be built later in the decade on the back of Trump’s policies, Hoos said. Investor sentiment was already shifting toward gas before the election results due in part to the need for reliable power to meet demand from artificial intelligence data centers, Abramov said.

Immediate impact

Two weeks after Trump’s order, New Jersey decided against moving forward for now with the Atlantic Shores project, which stood to become the first offshore wind development in the state. The state utilities board cited “uncertainty driven by federal actions and permitting” and European oil major Shell pulling out of the project.
“The offshore wind industry is currently facing significant challenges, and now is the time for patience and prudence,” Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement backing the board’s decision.
Murphy, who has set a goal to achieve 100% clean energy in New Jersey by 2035, said he hoped “the Trump Administration will partner with New Jersey to lower costs for consumers, promote energy security, and create good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs.”
Offshore wind in the U.S. “has come to a stop, more or less with immediate effect” in the wake of Trump’s order, Vestas Wind Energy Systems CEO Henrik Andersen told investors on the company’s Feb. 5 earnings call. Denmark’s Vestas is one of the world’s leaders in manufacturing and servicing wind turbines.

Industry headwinds

Trump’s order deepens the challenges of an industry that was already facing an uncertain outlook after years growth.
Wind has surged as power source in the U.S. over the past 25 years from 2.4 gigawatts of installed generating capacity to 150 gigawatts by April 2024, according to data from the Energy Information Administration. Generation from wind hit a record that month, surpassing coal-fired power. Wind currently represents about 11% of total U.S. power generation.

But the industry has struggled against supply chain bottlenecks and high interest rates. Offshore wind was already the the most expensive form of renewable energy, Abramov said. Developers in the U.S. have faced a lot of cost certainty due to the challenges of building on water as opposed to land, Hoos said.
“The industry was hoping that the cost would come down,” Abramov said. “We haven’t seen any projects in the United States which was able to achieve lower levelized cost of energy.”
The world’s largest offshore wind developer, Denmark’s Orsted, decided on Feb. 5 to ditch its goal to install up to 38 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030. Orsted also slashed its investment program through the end of the decade by about 25% to range of 210 to 230 billion Danish crowns (about $29 billion to $32 billion), down from 270 billion crowns previously.
Orsted’s Sunrise Wind and Revolution wind projects that are under construction offshore New York and New England respectively should not be impacted by Trump’s order, CEO Rasmus Errboe told investors the company’s company’s Feb. 6 earnings call. Future developments, however, may be at risk.
“We are fully committed to moving them forward and deliver on our commitments,” Errboe said. “We do not expect that the executive order will have any implications on assets under construction, but of course for assets under development, it’s potentially a different situation.”
The order also should not impact Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, the largest such project under construction in the U.S. at 2.6 gigawatts of power, Dominion Energy CEO Robert Blue told investors on the utility’s Feb. 12 earning call.
“Stopping it would be the most inflationary action that could be taken with respect to energy in Virginia,” Blue said. “It’s needed to power that growing data center market we’ve been talking about, critical to continuing U.S. superiority in AI and technology.”

Looking for clarity

The wind industry lobby group American Clean Power in a Jan. 20 statement described Trump’s order as a blanket measure that will jeopardize domestic energy development and harm American businesses and workers. The president’s order contradicts the administration’s goal to reduce bureaucracy and unleash energy production, ACP CEO Jason Grumet said in the statement.
The ACP is now trying to get clarity from the Trump administration on how the executive order will be implemented, said Frank Macchiarola, the group’s chief advocacy officer. It’s unclear, for example, when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, Macchiarola said.
A spokesperson for the Interior Department simply said the department is implementing Trump’s executive order when asked for comment on a detailed list of questions. When asked when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, the spokesperson said any estimate would be hypothetical.
The wind industry is committed to working with the Trump administration, supports the president’s push for energy dominance agenda and is making the case that renewables have a key role to play in that agenda as the largest new source of electricity in the U.S., Macchiarola said.
“When past administrations have chosen to stifle American energy development that has been almost universally viewed as a mistake,” Macchiarola said.
Onshore wind permitting has also been halted pending the review, but the part of the industry is unlikely to face a substantial impact, Rystad’s Abramov said. Wind farms onshore are almost entirely built on private rather than federal land, he said. The market is also already saturated and adding capacity is largely dependent on building out more energy storage first, the analyst said.
Offshore wind, however, is a much less mature market in the U.S. and was viewed as major growth opportunity for the industry, Abramov said. But that appears to changing rapidly.
“They don’t see the U.S. as a market for continuous offshore wind expansion as long as this order is in place,” the analyst said.

— CNBC’s Gabriel Cortes contributed to this report.

Don’t miss these energy insights from CNBC PRO: More