Markus Andrews

Silas Stein | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

The Middle East conflict and macro uncertainty are expected to keep global stock markets volatile, so it would be prudent for investors to ignore short-term noise and pick names with solid growth prospects.
To this end, top Wall Street analysts’ research can be a key consideration for investors who are picking out stocks and seeking names with long-term potential.

Here are three stocks favored by the Street’s top pros, according to TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.

Chewy

We start this week with online pet retailer Chewy (CHWY). The company recently delivered solid revenue and earnings for the first quarter of fiscal 2025. However, investors were concerned about some aspects, including the decline in free cash flow.
Reacting to the Q1 FY25 performance, JPMorgan analyst Doug Anmuth increased his price target for CHWY stock to $47 from $36 and reiterated a buy rating, saying that the post-earnings sell-off in the stock seems overdone. TipRanks’ AI analyst has an outperform recommendation on CHWY stock, with a price target of $46.
Anmuth stated that he remains bullish on Chewy stock due to its strong execution, growth in active customers, and profitability ramp. He expects sponsored ads, product mix and fixed cost leverage to drive a multi-year profitability ramp.
“We believe CHWY is capturing share from AMZN/WMT supported by hardgoods, product mix shift, consumables, AutoShip, & efficient marketing, while improving industry trends would be a tailwind,” the analyst said.

Anmuth views Chewy’s full-year revenue outlook as conservative, given that the company is tracking towards the upper half of its guidance range. He highlighted that the 240,000 sequential increase in Q1 2025 Active Customer marked the fourth consecutive quarter of growth. He also pointed out improvements in other metrics like gross additions, reactivations and retention. 
Anmuth ranks No. 42 among more than 9,600 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 65% of the time, delivering an average return of 21.9%. See Chewy Ownership Structure on TipRanks.

Pinterest

Next on this week’s list is social media platform Pinterest (PINS). Recently, the company entered into a partnership with Instacart, under which advertisements on Pinterest will become directly shoppable via Instacart.
Reacting to the collaboration, Bank of America analyst Justin Post reaffirmed a buy rating on PINS with a price target of $41. TipRanks’ AI analyst has assigned an outperform rating on PINS stock, with a price target of $37.
Post said that advertisers can capitalize on Instacart’s first-party purchase data to target Pinterest users. The analyst highlighted that in the initial phase, select brands can reach Pinterest users based on real-world retail purchase behavior captured by Instacart. The second phase will introduce a “closed-loop measurement,” enabling advertisers to see how Pinterest ads lead to product sales across Instacart’s network of over 1,800 retail partners.
Overall, this partnership will provide more precise ad campaign insights and performance tracking. Post noted the rise in PINS stock in reaction to this deal and potentially favorable Q2 ad data. The top-rated analyst thinks that the partnership is a “good fit as CPG [consumer packaged goods] is one of Pinterest’s largest verticals (cooking and recipes also popular), and the closed loop attribution on campaigns will likely be valued by advertisers.”
If successful, Post thinks that the partnership could drive incremental ad spend by CPG clients. He remains constructive on Pinterest due to artificial intelligence (AI) enhancements that seem to be fueling user engagement and improved ad performance, with AI ramp still in the early stage.
Post ranks No.23 among more than 9,600 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 69% of the time, delivering an average return of 22.9%. See Pinterest Insider Trading Activity on TipRanks.

Uber Technologies

We move to Uber Technologies (UBER), a ride-sharing and delivery platform. Recently, Stifel analyst Mark Kelley initiated a buy rating on UBER stock with a price target of $110. The analyst stated that he views UBER as a “super app” offering multiple reasons to use its platform, like commuting, ordering food and delivery.
Commenting on whether the emergence of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is a risk or opportunity, Kelley said that AVs present minimal risk to Uber’s business over the near-to-medium term due to some hurdles, like safety, clarity on regulatory framework, cost of manufacturing AVs and large investments needed to support an AV fleet. In fact, the analyst thinks that the long-term risk from AVs is also unclear currently due to a wide range of potential outcomes.
Kelley is optimistic that Uber is well-positioned to meet or surpass the financial targets set in 2024, thanks to its solid execution. He expects gross bookings growth of 16% each in 2025 and 2026, supported by continued expansion into non-urban areas and internationally, with persistent adoption of UberOne. Moreover, Kelley expects earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization growth to be higher than gross bookings and revenue growth in 2025 and 2026.
Finally, Kelley is confident that Uber will eventually be successful in Delivery, which also facilitates customer acquisition, mainly in less dense/non-urban areas. He expects initiatives like Uber One and increased supply to boost Delivery bookings ahead. Kelly is also bullish on the greater retail media sub-segment of digital ads, as Uber has several advantages, like access to location data. Like Kelley, TipRanks’ AI analyst is also bullish on UBER stock, with a price target of $108.
Kelley ranks No.119 among more than 9,600 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 67% of the time, delivering an average return of 25.3%. See Uber Technologies Statistics and Valuation on TipRanks. More

People pass a Victoria’s Secret store in Manhattan, New York City, on June 5, 2024.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Company: Victoria’s Secret & Co (VSCO)
Business: Victoria’s Secret & Co. is a specialty retailer of women’s apparel and beauty products marketed under the Victoria’s Secret, Pink and Adore Me brand names. Victoria’s Secret brand offers intimate apparel, casual sleepwear, swim, lounge and sport, as well as fragrances and body care. Pink is a lifestyle brand for young women providing variety of collections and heritage pieces, including intimate apparel, loungewear, activewear, accessories, beauty and more. Adore Me is a direct-to-consumer lingerie and apparel brand that is focused on serving women of all sizes and budgets.
Stock Market Value: $1.5B ($18.83 per share)

Stock chart icon

Victoria’s Secret & Co. in 2025

Activist: Barington Capital

Ownership: > 1%
Average Cost: n/a
Activist Commentary: Barington was founded in 1992 by James A. Mitarotonda as a boutique, full-service investment bank to serve the needs of emerging growth and smaller capitalization companies. The success of the firm and its investments led to the wind-down of the investment bank and the launch of an activist hedge fund in 2000. In its history, Barington has taken material action at 38 other companies and has averaged a 38.18% return on these investments versus 14.74% for the Russell 2000 over the same period.
What’s happening
Barington is advocating for Victoria’s Secret to (i) replace at least a majority, if not all, of the board with directors who have proven experience in brand revitalization, operational execution, international expansion and shareholder value creation (six of the nine current directors have been on the board since its public listing); (ii) have the reconstituted board consider whether CEO Hillary Super has the experience and strategic clarity necessary to engineer a turnaround; (iii) dedicate additional focus to its core brand; (iv) accelerate growth in digital and international markets; and (v) streamline the operating model eliminating underperforming and distracting initiatives.
Behind the scenes
Victoria’s Secret & Co. (“VSCO”) is a specialty retailer of lingerie, clothing and beauty products through its flagship Victoria’s Secret brand, Pink and Adore Me. The company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange in summer 2021 following a spin-off from L Brands (which is now Bath & Body Works). The company’s nearly four-year stint in the public markets has been marked by difficulties. Trading at an all-time high of roughly $76 per share not long after its debut, shares have fallen more than 75% to around $18 per share.

Investor BBRC International PTE Limited converted from a 13G to a 13D in February 2024 and built its position to nearly 13% as VSCO shares continued to tumble. Earlier this month, BBRC sent a letter to Victoria’s Secret Chair Donna James in which it lambasted the board for its history of value destruction. BBRC’s letter is short on support and detail and long on allegation, negativity and second guessing with the benefit of hindsight. The only suggestion the investor makes states the obvious: “constructing a confidence-inspiring Board and generating positive financial returns to drive value creation.” Thankfully for Victoria’s Secret and its shareholders, a more constructive and experienced activist showed up: Barington Capital.
On June 16, Barington sent a letter to the board of VSCO notifying the company of its more than 1% position. Then in its very next paragraph, Barington uses words like “constructively,” “collaboratively” and “helpful.” The firm does not just claim to have industry experience, but cites its engagement with L Brands, the former parent company of VSCO, which led to an increase in the stock price by 221.5% during its tenure as an advisor to the board of directors. Like BBRC, Barington criticizes the company’s dismal underperformance, trailing its peers by 47.4 percentage points since its IPO. But while BBRC was content with just being critical, Barington specifically identifies several reasons for the underperformance such as declining revenue, shrinking gross margins, growing inventory, high senior management turnover, a lack of marketing and merchandising focus and an apparent failure to articulate or execute a compelling brand vision. Had Barington just left it there, the firm would have been more helpful than BBRC. However, as a responsible and experienced shareholder activist, Barington takes it to the next integral step – suggestions on a path forward. Specifically, Barington recommended that Victoria’s Secret: (i) replace at least a majority, if not all, of the board with directors who have proven experience in brand revitalization, operational execution, international expansion and shareholder value creation (six of the nine current directors have been on the board since its public listing); (ii) have the reconstituted board consider whether CEO Hillary Super has the experience and strategic clarity necessary to engineer a turnaround; (iii) dedicate additional focus to its core brand; (iv) accelerate growth in digital and international markets; and (v) streamline the operating model eliminating underperforming and distracting initiatives.
Barington is no stranger to VSCO. In fact, the firm was a vocal proponent of the spin in a previous 2019 campaign at L Brands. At the time, Barington recommended that the company take swift action to improve the performance of VSCO by correcting merchandising mistakes and launching a strategic review to unlock value through a separation of VSCO from Bath & Body Works. The two parties eventually entered into an agreement pursuant to which L Brands appointed Barington as a special advisor to the company, and Barington agreed to withdraw its proposed nominees to the board. Ultimately, VSCO was spun and Barington generated a return of over 221.5% during its tenure as an advisor to the board.
Barington may not be a household name in the investor world like many activists, but it has as much experience as any activist today. The firm’s activism dates back to 2000, and much of it was focused on the retail sector, targeting companies like Hanesbrands, Chico’s FAS and Dillard’s. Of its 46 campaigns, 19 have been at consumer discretionary companies, at which the firm has had an average return of 13.86% versus 8.56% for the Russell 2000 over the same period. Barington does not like spending what it takes to win a proxy fight, preferring to gain representation through settlements. Its recent proxy fight and loss at Matthews International was evidence of this, but also showed that Barington is still willing to take a proxy fight to the distance. Barington is not likely to go through that again so soon, but given its experience in this industry and at Victoria’s Secret (two of the current directors, including Chair Donna James, were directors when Barington successfully collaboratively engaged in 2019), we would expect that the firm would have a good opportunity to work constructively and amicably with the board to create shareholder value.
Ken Squire is the founder and president of 13D Monitor, an institutional research service on shareholder activism, and the founder and portfolio manager of the 13D Activist Fund, a mutual fund that invests in a portfolio of activist 13D investments. More

FA Playbook

Republicans’ “big beautiful” bill could result in higher monthly payments for many federal student loan borrowers, a new analysis finds.
If the GOP legislation is enacted, student loan borrowers could pay hundreds of dollars a month more under the proposed “Repayment Assistance Plan,” or RAP, compared with the now-blocked SAVE plan.
“This kind of financial drag could further delay major life milestones like homeownership, starting a family, or saving for retirement,” said Doug Boneparth, a certified financial planner.

US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference after a House Republican conference meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on June 4, 2025.
Saul Loeb | Afp | Getty Images

Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act could result in higher monthly payments for many federal student loan borrowers, a new analysis finds.
If the legislation is enacted as drafted, a student loan borrower earning roughly $80,000 a year (the median for a bachelors’ degree holder in 2024) would have a monthly payment of $467 under the GOP-proposed “Repayment Assistance Plan,” or RAP, according to recent findings by the Student Borrower Protection Center. That compares with a $187 monthly bill on the Biden administration’s now-blocked SAVE, or Saving On A Valuable Education plan.

No matter their income, borrowers face higher monthly payments under RAP compared with SAVE, the analysis found. For lower incomes, the difference may be just $10 per month; for higher earners, the new repayment plan can be as much as $605 per month pricier.

Depending on their income, some federal student loan borrowers also face higher payments on RAP than they would have on the U.S. Department of Education’s other income-driven repayment plans, including PAYE, or Pay As You Earn and IBR, or Income-Based Repayment.
However, some borrowers on PAYE or IBR plans would have a smaller bill under RAP. For example, a borrower with a roughly $60,000 annual income would pay $250 a month on RAP, and $304 on PAYE, the SBPC found.
The House advanced its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released its budget bill recommendations related to student loans on June 10. Senate lawmakers are preparing to debate the massive tax and spending package.

Larger bills could push more borrowers into default

Under the Republican proposals, there would be just two repayment plan choices for borrowers who take out loans after July 1, 2026, compared with roughly a dozen options now.

After graduation, those student loan borrowers could either enroll in a standard repayment plan with fixed payments, or a single income-based repayment plan: RAP.

More from FA Playbook:

Here’s a look at other stories affecting the financial advisor business.

Under RAP, monthly payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrower’s income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment. There would be a minimum monthly payment of $10 for all borrowers.
The new plan would fail to provide many borrowers with an affordable monthly bill — the goal of Congress when it established income-driven repayment plans in the 1990s, Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success, recently told CNBC.
“If Republicans’ proposed ‘Repayment Assistance Plan’ is the only thing standing between borrowers and default, we can expect many to suffer the nightmarish experience of default,” Zampini said.

Repayment timeline to stretch over three decades

Meanwhile, current income-driven repayment plans now conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 years or 25 years. But RAP wouldn’t lead to debt erasure until 30 years.
“This kind of financial drag could further delay major life milestones like homeownership, starting a family, or saving for retirement,” said Doug Boneparth, a certified financial planner and the founder and president of Bone Fide Wealth in New York. He is a member of CNBC’s Financial Advisor Council.

There’s also “an emotional toll” to carrying student debt for so long, said Cathy Curtis, the founder of Curtis Financial Planning in Oakland, California. She is also a member of CNBC’s Financial Advisor Council.
“It reinforces the feeling of being stuck — especially for those who’ve already struggled to access opportunity,” Curtis said.

GOP: Bill helps those who ‘chose not to go to college’

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has said his party’s plans would lift the burden on taxpayers of subsidizing college graduates’ loan payments.
″[Former President Joe] Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college,” Cassidy said in a statement on June 10.
He said his committee’s bill would save an estimated $300 billion out of the federal budget.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Many clean energy tax credits for consumers would be terminated in 2026 under House and Senate Republicans’ “big beautiful” bill.
A $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicles, $4,000 credit for used EVs and tax breaks tied to boosting a home’s energy efficiency are among those that would be on the chopping block.
Republicans would use these federal funds and others from reductions to Medicaid and food assistance programs to pay for domestic policy priorities like tax cuts.

Halfpoint Images | Moment | Getty Images

Legislation that Republicans are trying to pass by the Fourth of July would end a slew of popular consumer tax breaks tied to clean energy, leading some experts to call on households to act now to collect the savings.
Many tax breaks on the chopping block were created, extended or enhanced by the Inflation Reduction Act, a 2022 law signed by former President Joe Biden that provided a historic U.S. investment to fight climate change.

More from Personal Finance:3 student loan changes in GOP megabillNot all vehicles may qualify for tax break on car loan interestSenate version of ‘big beautiful’ bill calls for $6,000 senior ‘bonus’
The Senate may vote on its measure, part of a broader package of domestic policy initiatives, as soon as next week. The House passed its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May.
Both bills would eliminate tax credits for households that buy or lease electric vehicles, or that make their homes more energy efficient.
“The intention of Republicans writing the bill is to root out all of the incentives from moving away from fossil fuels that the Biden administration puts in place, and it’s just a question of timeline,” said Matt Gardner, senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

GOP set to end many clean energy tax breaks in 2026

Republicans would use money from the clean energy tax breaks — as well as cuts to food assistance and healthcare programs like Medicaid — to help pay for a broader multitrillion-dollar package of tax cuts for households and businesses, among other policy priorities.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which House Republicans passed in May, would end a tax credit of up to $7,500 for qualifying households that buy a new electric vehicle and a $4,000 credit for those who buy a used EV.
It would also end a separate tax incentive that allowed car dealers to pass along a $7,500 credit to consumers who lease an electric vehicle.

Additionally, the House bill would end the energy efficient home improvement credit (also known as the 25C credit) and residential clean energy credit (the 25D credit), which help consumers defray the cost of projects like installing insulation, solar panels, heat pumps, and installing energy-efficient windows and doors.
With few exceptions, these tax breaks would disappear in 2026, about seven years earlier than under current law, which makes them available through 2032.
Senate Republicans, who haven’t yet passed their version of the legislation, would end these tax breaks under a similar timeline.
For example, the tax credit for used EVs would end 90 days after the law’s enactment. The credits for new and leased EVs, as well as the ones tied to energy efficiency, would disappear after 180 days.

Advocates for preserving the tax credits argue that getting rid of the tax breaks would raise monthly bills for U.S. households and businesses.
A group of 21 House GOP lawmakers in March expressed support for preserving clean energy tax credits, in a letter to Rep. Jason Smith, R-MO, chairman of the House Ways and Means tax-writing committee.
“As our conference works to make energy prices more affordable, tax reforms that would raise energy costs for hard working Americans would be contrary to this goal,” they wrote.
Consumers who want to ensure they get a federal tax break for buying an EV or undergoing an energy-efficiency home project should act soon, according to experts.
“Based on the existing proposed language, if you’ve been considering an EV or planning to get one, now is the time to do it,” Alexia Melendez Martineau, senior policy manager at Plug In America, told CNBC recently.
The legislation may change in the Senate, which may vote on the massive domestic policy measure as soon as next week. If there are changes, the House would have to pass the legislation before sending it to President Trump’s desk. More

The trust fund Social Security relies on to help pay retirement benefits may be depleted in 2033, at which point 77% of those benefits would be payable.
The program’s combined trust funds, which also includes disability insurance, may run out in 2034, one year sooner than projected last year.
Advocates for Social Security’s beneficiaries said Congress should act as soon as possible to avoid a benefit shortfall.

A Social Security Administration office in Washington, D.C., March 26, 2025.
Saul Loeb | Afp | Getty Images

The trust fund Social Security relies on to pay retirement benefits may be depleted in 2033, according to an annual report released by the Social Security Board of Trustees on Wednesday. That is unchanged from last year’s projections.
At that time, 77% of those benefits will be payable, according to the report.

Social Security’s combined trust funds — the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund — will have enough revenue to pay scheduled benefits and administrative costs until 2034, according to the report. That is one year earlier than projected last year.
At that time, 81% of the combined benefits will be payable, according to the new projection.
While the combined depletion date is used to gauge Social Security’s solvency, current law prohibits joining those funds. However, Congress has authorized shifting of the funds in the past when there have been trust fund shortfalls.
The Disability Insurance fund will be able to pay full benefits through at least 2099, according to the report.
More from Personal Finance:Senate version of ‘big beautiful ‘ bill calls for $6,000 senior ‘bonus”SALT’ deduction in limbo as Senate Republicans unveil tax planHow Senate GOP ‘no tax on tips’ proposal differs from House plan

Medicare’s Hospital Insurance trust fund, which is associated with Medicare Part A and pays for certain health-care services, will be able to pay full benefits until 2033, according to the Medicare trustees’ report, which was also released Wednesday. That is three years earlier than projected last year.
At that time, 89% of benefits will be payable.
The new Social Security trustees report takes into account the effects of the Social Security Fairness Act, according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That legislation, which enhanced benefits for certain public pensioners, went into effect in 2025. Experts anticipated the law would move the program’s depletion date closer.
However, new tax proposals, tariffs and deportations were not included in the new trustees’ report, which is based on assumptions dating back to December, Romig said. Those three developments may “pose serious threats to Social Security’s financing,” she said.

Congress ‘must act’ to protect program

Social Security’s trust funds help pay for benefits when more money is needed in addition to ongoing revenue from payroll taxes.
Workers currently contribute 6.2% of their pay toward Social Security and 1.45% toward Medicare. Employers typically match those taxes. However, self-employed workers pay a 15.3% tax rate.
To shore up Social Security’s and Medicare’s trust funds, Congress may raise taxes, cut benefits or a combination of both.
Approximately 70 million people will receive Social Security benefits this year, while 185 million individuals work and contribute to the program through payroll taxes, Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano said in a statement.
The financial status of the trust funds is a “top priority” for the Trump administration, Bisignano said. He also called on Congress to “protect and strengthen” the trust funds for the millions of Americans who will rely on the program “now and in the future.”

Advocates for Social Security beneficiaries likewise called for lawmakers to address Social Security’s looming funding shortfall.
“Congress must act to protect and strengthen the Social Security that Americans have earned and paid into throughout their working lives,” AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan said in a statement following the release of the report.
Minter-Jordan said that “as America’s population ages, the stability of this vital program only becomes more important.”
Because the Social Security and Medicare depletion dates are approaching, lawmakers are “running out of time to phase in changes gradually and avoid harsh cuts, sharp tax increases, or unacceptable borrowing,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement.
Based on the current outlook, Social Security and Medicare won’t be able to pay full benefits for today’s retirees, MacGuineas said. For example, the trust funds will run out when today’s 59-year-olds reach full retirement age and when today’s youngest retirees turn 70, she said.

Raise taxes, or cut benefits?

Democrats and Republican lawmakers are divided over whether to raise taxes or cut benefits to shore up Social Security.
However, a recent survey found 85% of Americans would rather raise taxes than cut benefits, according to the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The groups polled more than 2,200 Americans.
“Across party lines, generations, income, education, the American people are strongly opposed to cutting Social Security,” said Rebecca Vallas, chief executive of the National Academy of Social Insurance.
The most popular policy option Americans want to see would be eliminating the payroll tax cap for earnings over $400,000, according to the survey. Currently, workers contribute payroll taxes to Social Security for wages up to $176,100. That cap would stay in place, while the payroll levies would be reapplied starting at $400,000 for higher earners.
Survey respondents were also largely in favor of gradually raising the payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 7.2% for both workers and employers.
“They want to see lawmakers secure the program by raising the revenues that are needed to keep the system strong for generations to come and to improve benefits,” Vallas said. More

GOP lawmakers, in their “big beautiful” bill, plan to eliminate several student loan repayment plans and keep borrowers in debt longer.
Consumer advocates warn that the legislation will deepen a lending crisis in which millions of borrowers are already struggling to pay off the debt from their education.

Staff members remove a sign following a press conference after the House passage of the tax and spending bill, at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

Republicans’ “big beautiful” bill, if enacted as drafted, would make some of the biggest changes to the federal student loan system in decades.
GOP House and Senate lawmakers’ proposals would eliminate several repayment plans, keep borrowers in debt longer and roll back relief options for those who become unemployed or run into another financial challenge.

The House advanced its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released its budget bill recommendations related to student loans on June 10. Senate lawmakers are preparing to debate the massive tax and spending package.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said his party’s plans would lift the burden on taxpayers of subsidizing college graduates’ loan payments.
“[Former President Joe] Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college,” Cassidy said in a statement on June 10. He said his committee’s bill would save an estimated $300 billion out of the federal budget.
More from Personal Finance:’SALT’ deduction in limbo as Senate Republicans unveil tax planHow Senate GOP ‘no tax on tips’ proposal differs from House planSenate tax bill includes $1,000 baby bonus in ‘Trump accounts’
However, consumer advocates say that the legislation will deepen a lending crisis in which millions of borrowers are already struggling to pay off the debt from their education.

“It’s not about fiscal responsibility, it’s about doing some funny math that justifies tax cuts,” said Astra Taylor, co-founder of the Debt Collective, a union for debtors.
“It’s going to be extremely hard for people to get out of debt with these changes,” Taylor said.
Here are three big proposals in the GOP bills to overhaul federal student lending.

1. Fewer repayment plans, larger bills

Under the Republican proposals, there would be just two repayment plan choices for new borrowers, compared with roughly a dozen options now.
Student loan borrowers could either enroll in a standard repayment plan with fixed payments, or an income-based repayment plan known as the “Repayment Assistance Plan,” or RAP.
Under RAP, monthly payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrower’s income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment. There would be a minimum monthly payment of $10 for all borrowers.

It’s going to be extremely hard for people to get out of debt with these changes.

Astra Taylor
Co-founder of the Debt Collective

A typical student loan borrower with a college degree could pay an extra $2,929 per year if the Senate GOP proposal of RAP is enacted, compared with the Biden administration’s now-blocked SAVE plan, according to a recent analysis by the Student Borrower Protection Center.
The new plan would fail to provide many borrowers with an affordable monthly bill — the goal of Congress when it established income-driven repayment plans in the 1990s, said Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success.
“If Republicans’ proposed ‘Repayment Assistance Plan’ is the only thing standing between borrowers and default, we can expect many to suffer the nightmarish experience of default,” Zampini said.

2. Longer timelines to loan forgiveness

As of now, borrowers who enroll in the standard repayment plan typically get their debt divided into 120 fixed payments, over 10 years. But the Republicans’ new standard plan would provide borrowers fixed payments over a period of between 10 years and 25 years, depending on how much they owe.
For example, those with a balance exceeding $50,000 would be in repayment for 15 years; if you owe over $100,000, your fixed payments will last for 25 years.

Meanwhile, current income-driven repayment plans now conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 years or 25 years. But RAP wouldn’t lead to debt erasure until 30 years.
“Thirty years is your adult life,” Taylor said.
If RAP becomes law, she said, “We anticipate an explosion of senior debtors.”

3. Fewer ways to pause bills

House and Senate Republicans are also calling for the elimination of the economic hardship and unemployment deferments.
Those deferments allow federal student loan borrowers to pause their monthly bills during periods of joblessness or other financial setbacks, often without interest accruing on their debt. Under both options, which have existed for decades, borrowers can avoid payments for up to three years.
Under the Senate Republicans’ proposal, student loans received on or after July 1, 2026, would no longer qualify for the unemployment deferment or economic hardship deferment. The House plan does away with both deferments a year earlier, on July 1, 2025.

“These protections enable borrowers to stay in good standing on their loans while they get back on their feet,” Zampini said.
“Without them, borrowers who suddenly can’t afford their payments will have little recourse, and many will likely enter delinquency and eventually default,” she said. More