Every May, the Social Security Administration releases the previous year's baby naming data on the Friday before Mother's Day. The 2024 cohort will land on May 9, 2025. The headlines will write themselves. Olivia will be number one for girls again. Liam will be number one for boys again, possibly for the seventh consecutive year. The press will treat this as the data point. It is, in fact, the least interesting data point. The actual cultural drama is happening in ranks 50 through 300, where names move 50 to 100 places year over year, where the top ten's stability is exposed as a kind of optical illusion, where the country's actual naming preferences are being negotiated and renegotiated faster than they have ever been.
The illusion of stability at the top
The top ten of the SSA chart looks stable because the names are slow to be displaced. Olivia has been at or near number one for girls since 2018. Liam has been at or near number one for boys since 2017. Sophia, Emma, Charlotte, Amelia, Mia have been rotating through the next nine slots in slightly different orders. The casual reader concludes that American baby naming is in a stable configuration. The reader is wrong.
The top ten is stable because the bar to enter or exit the top ten is enormous. Each of the top ten names is given to roughly 1 percent of all American girls (or boys, on the boys' side) born in a year. To displace one of them, a new name has to climb to that 1 percent threshold, which takes years of sustained growth. Most names that climb fast hit a plateau well below the top ten. The top ten's stability is not a sign that American naming is settled. It is a sign that the top ten is a high gate.
What the margins look like
Pull SSA data for ranks 50 through 300 and the picture changes immediately. The annual movements in this band are dramatic. Names jump 50, 80, 120 places year over year. New entries appear from below. Names that were rising five years ago drop sharply. Names that were declining stabilize and reverse. The cultural conversation about names — the social media trends, the celebrity influence, the regional movements — registers most clearly in this band. The top ten is the slow-moving glacier. Ranks 50-300 are the river flowing past it.
This is the band where, for the 2024 cohort, the most interesting movements will live. Names like Truce, Ailany, Yamileth, Emersyn, Ottilie are the kinds of entries that produce real surprise when the data drops. Ottilie may not be in the top 1000 yet, but its growth rate is striking. Truce has been slowly rising as a unisex name with a peace-coded etymology that fits the broader naming aesthetic of the late 2020s. Ailany, a name with Hispanic-coded roots, has been climbing fast. These names register in the SSA's mid-tier with growth rates that the top ten cannot exhibit because the top ten has too little room to grow.
Why the press covers the wrong story
The press covers the top ten because it is the easiest story to tell. "Olivia is number one again" is a one-sentence headline. "The names ranked 50 through 300 collectively reveal a shifting American naming landscape" is a paragraph that requires the reader to understand the data structure. Headlines have to win the click contest. Top-ten coverage wins clicks. Margin coverage does not. The result is that the publicly visible naming discourse is concentrated on the most stable, least informative part of the data.
This is the kind of selection bias that affects most data-driven journalism. The story that is easiest to tell becomes the story that is most often told. The story that requires more work to tell becomes the story that is mostly left untold. Annual SSA coverage in mainstream press is, with rare exceptions, top-ten coverage. The interesting analysis is mostly happening in trade publications, naming-website blogs, and academic papers that reach narrower audiences. The general public sees the headlines about Olivia. They do not see the analysis of Truce.
The volatility metric
One useful way to read the SSA data is to compute, year over year, what fraction of total American births occur to names in different rank bands. The top ten covers about 8 percent of girls and 7 percent of boys. The top 100 covers about 30 percent of births. The top 1000 covers about 75 percent of births. The remaining 25 percent of births are distributed across thousands of names that appear in tiny numbers — names that the SSA tracks but that mostly do not register in cultural conversation.
The volatility within the top 1000 has been, by some measures, increasing. Year-over-year movements at ranks 100-500 have been larger in the 2020s than they were in the 1990s. The mid-tier is more responsive to cultural events than it once was. Streaming, social media, and the broader fragmentation of American cultural conversation have made it easier for names to move quickly through the mid-tier. The top ten's stability is more apparent than ever, but the rest of the chart is more volatile.
What the May 2025 release will show
The May 2025 release of 2024 data will, I expect, confirm Olivia and Liam at the top, perhaps with Sophia or Charlotte stepping back into number two on the girls' side and Noah or Oliver taking number two on the boys' side. The headlines will be predictable. Underneath the headlines, the cohort will register the cultural movements of 2024 — Brat summer, the Olympics, the Wicked Part I release, the various K-drama and Netflix releases. The mid-tier will move faster than it did in 2023.
Specific things to look for: Charli with the i should appear higher than its previous baseline, partly absorbing momentum from Charlie. Mateo and Sofia will continue climbing. Several Sheridan-Western names (Wyatt, Beck, Cole, Boone) should hold or rise. Felix should continue its rise despite Saltburn. Olivia (the name, not Munn) will hold. Sabrina will rise meaningfully. Eloise and Margot will continue climbing. The vintage revival names (Theodore, Henry, Walter, Hazel) will continue their slow upward march.
What the press will probably miss
The press will probably miss most of these. The press will write that Olivia is number one. They will write a fluff piece about the most popular names overall. They will not, with rare exceptions, dig into the mid-tier where the cultural movement is registering. This is a recurring frustration for anyone who works with the SSA data professionally. The story is in the data; the press just does not look in the right place.
If you are a parent reading the May 2025 coverage, the question to ask yourself is whether the article is about the top ten or about the broader chart. If it is about the top ten, you are reading the surface. If it is about the broader chart, you are reading something closer to the actual cultural data. The honest journalism in this space is about the broader chart. The clickable journalism is about the top ten. Both exist. The proportion is unfavorable.
A note on the methodology
The SSA's data is unusually clean for what it is. The agency has been tracking baby names in the United States since 1880, with the methodology stable enough that long-run comparisons are usable. The data is publicly available, downloadable in machine-readable format, and reasonably well-documented. The limitations are known: the SSA does not track race or ethnicity, the agency suppresses names that appear fewer than five times in a given year (which means very rare names are invisible), and the data only includes children who received Social Security numbers (which means undocumented children may not register). These limitations are real but minor for population-scale analysis.
What the SSA data does not give you is interpretation. The data shows what names were given. It does not tell you why. The interpretive work — figuring out which cultural moments produced which naming movements — is the analyst's job. The interpretive work is hard. It requires knowing what was happening culturally at the relevant time, having a feel for naming aesthetics across generations, and being willing to be wrong about specific cases while being broadly right about patterns. Most press coverage skips this work. The work is, in many ways, what naming-data journalism actually is.
The anticipation
For people who follow the SSA data closely, the months between January and May are a slow build of anticipation. We are guessing at what the new data will show. We are positioning predictions that the May release will confirm or refute. We are paying attention to the trailing indicators — Google Trends, naming-app save rates, parenting forum chatter — that hint at what the SSA will eventually report. The data, when it lands, settles bets that have been running for months.
The 2024 cohort is going to be unusually interesting because 2024 was an unusually eventful year. The Olympics, the election, the Wicked release, the Squid Game season, the Spotify Wrapped Sabrina moment, the various other cultural events that may register in the data. Olivia and Liam will hold the top. The rest of the chart will be where the actual story lives. May is four months away. The wait, for those of us who care, has already started.
Data source: U.S. Social Security Administration. Analysis by NamesPop.
Found this helpful?
Share it with someone who’s picking a name.