Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which specific degrees did the 2025 Department of Education memo classify as professional programs?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 proposal and related reporting show a narrowed list of degrees the agency has described as “professional” for higher federal loan caps, repeatedly naming medicine, law, dentistry, pharmacy and veterinary medicine among others; major outlets report roughly 10–11 fields on the core list (see Politico, Inside Higher Ed, USA Today) [1] [2] [3]. Several news outlets and advocacy groups say programs such as nursing, social work, public health, counseling and many education degrees were left off that central list and are being treated differently under loan-cap rules, generating pushback [3] [4] [5].
1. What the memo/proposal actually lists — a short catalog
Reporting on the Department’s negotiated-rulemaking proposal says the agency explicitly included traditional “doctor/professional” fields — medicine, dentistry, law, pharmacy, veterinary medicine and similar degree areas — as qualifying for the higher “professional” loan caps; Politico describes “nearly a dozen” areas including medicine, law, dentistry and theology as examples [1]. Other outlets summarize the Department’s initial list as roughly 10 degrees and subsequent proposals that expand or refine that set only slightly [2] [3].
2. Degrees widely reported as excluded from “professional” status
Multiple outlets and fact-checkers emphasize that the Education Department’s narrower approach omits many graduate programs that professional organizations argue lead to licensure and direct practice — notably nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW/DSW), public health (MPH/DrPH), many counseling and therapy degrees, and some teaching masters — and that omission is a central source of controversy [5] [4] [3].
3. Where coverage agrees and where it diverges
News organizations agree there is a core, limited list of fields the department treats as “professional” for the new loan-cap scheme [1] [2] [3]. They differ, however, on characterization: some pieces frame the agency as merely clarifying an old federal definition and point out the proposal isn’t yet final (Snopes stresses the agency has not formally reclassified programs because rulemaking hadn’t concluded at time of reporting) [5], while advocacy and labor-oriented reporting treats the move as an active reclassification that will deny higher caps to many students (Newsweek and WSWS present the change as stripping status from many fields) [4] [6].
4. Legal and procedural context — rulemaking, not an immediate ban
The Department’s changes arise within negotiated rulemaking tied to implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s loan caps; the government has held committee sessions and proposals but, as Snopes notes, proposals discussed in rulemaking are not final agency reclassifications until the regulatory process concludes [5] [7]. The Department’s web pages on negotiated rulemaking explain that this is the forum where definitions and Title IV regulations are being revised [7].
5. What proponents and opponents say — competing viewpoints
Supporters of a narrower list argue for consistency with an older regulatory definition and for limiting high-subsidy borrowing to programs with very high credential costs and earnings potential (Snopes cites the Department’s stance about using the 1965 regulatory definition) [5]. Opponents — professional associations and some media outlets — say excluding fields like nursing and social work undermines workforce pipelines and disproportionately affects fields with high female representation; Newsweek quotes nursing groups warning the change contradicts licensure-and-practice-based definitions [4].
6. Practical effect on loan caps if the list holds
Reporting ties the “professional” designation to higher borrowing caps under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act: professional students could face higher annual and lifetime limits (reported caps cited across sources), while students in fields not on the list would be subject to lower graduate caps — a shift that advocacy groups warn would make some programs harder to finance [1] [3] [6].
7. Unanswered questions and limits of current reporting
Available sources do not include the actual department memo text you referenced by memo number; coverage instead relies on negotiated-rulemaking proposals, committee discussions and summaries from outlets (available sources do not mention the exact memo language). Exact final list, legal text, and any exemptions remain subject to ongoing rulemaking and formal publication [7] [5].
8. Bottom line for readers navigating claims
If you see headlines saying the Education Department “has reclassified” or “stripped” specific degrees, note two factual points in current reporting: the department’s proposal narrows the practical list of degrees eligible for the highest loan caps to about 10–11 traditional professional fields [1] [2], and rulemaking was ongoing at the time of reporting — meaning final regulatory language and any official memo must be checked once the Department publishes a final rule [5] [7].