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 programs did the 2025 Dept. of Education reclassify as non-professional and where is the official list published?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) in late 2025 proposed a narrow definition of “professional degree programs” that—if finalized—would exclude many graduate programs (for example, nursing, physician assistant, physical therapy, public health, social work and certain education degrees) from eligibility for the higher loan limits created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) [1] [2]. Reporting, sector associations and advocacy groups say ED’s negotiated-rule draft and committee work are where the proposed reclassifications appear, and a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from ED is expected to publish the official text and any final list [3] [1].
1. What’s actually happened so far — rulemaking, not a finalized “ban”
The coverage in Inside Higher Ed and related reporting describes a Department of Education proposal and negotiated rulemaking sessions that produced draft criteria for what counts as a “professional” program; this is a proposal from ED’s rulemaking/RISE process rather than a final, binding list of reclassified degrees [1] [4]. Newsweek and other outlets have reported concrete program types likely to be excluded under that draft (e.g., nursing, physician assistants, physical therapy, audiology) but those are summaries of proposed outcomes, not citations of a finalized ED list [2] [5].
2. Which programs reporters and stakeholders say would be excluded
Multiple news outlets and professional organizations point to health, education and social‑services programs as the main categories at risk under ED’s draft: nursing (MSN, DNP and related advanced practice tracks), physician assistant, physical and occupational therapy, audiology and speech‑language pathology; public health (MPH, DrPH); many education master’s degrees and social work (MSW) are specifically mentioned in reporting and advocacy statements [2] [5] [3]. Note: some social posts circulate long lists claiming ED has already “reclassified” dozens of degrees; those posts appear to be summarizing proposals or mixing in Department of Labor classification moves, not pointing to a single official ED publication [6] [7].
3. Where ED is expected to publish the official list or rule
Available reporting says the Department will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that contains ED’s definition and any program-level criteria; that NPRM opens a public comment period and is the formal venue where the government publishes the proposed rule text and lists or criteria [3] [1]. Inside Higher Ed’s coverage specifically notes ED released a proposal during negotiated rulemaking—indicating the NPRM or the Federal Register posting is where an “official list” would appear [1].
4. What counts as “professional” under ED’s draft — criteria, not program names
ED’s draft rule does not simply name degree titles; it proposes a three-part test that ties “professional” status to [8] inclusion within certain four‑digit CIP code groups linked to 11 professions, [9] educational duration standards (often linked to doctoral-level or 6+ years post‑secondary coursework), and [10] other legacy/program‑of‑study criteria—meaning a program’s CIP code and structure matter more than its marketing name [1] [4]. This explains why commentators see many master’s‑level healthcare and education programs falling outside the draft definition even if they lead to licensure [4] [3].
5. Who is pushing back and why
Professional associations (e.g., schools of public health, nursing organizations) and university groups warn the draft will restrict access to higher loan limits and could make advanced training less affordable—ASPPH and AAU have publicly said the draft would exclude MPH, DrPH and other fields and urged vigorous public comments [3] [11]. Think‑tank and advocacy pieces argue the narrower definition prevents over‑broad loan eligibility and protects taxpayers by limiting higher loan caps to long, costly doctoral‑level professional tracks [12].
6. How to find the “official” text and verify claims
The formal place to verify any final ED decision is the Department of Education’s federal publications: the forthcoming NPRM/Federal Register posting for the student‑loan rulemaking (as described in reporting) and ED press releases or the negotiated‑rulemaking committee materials. Current news and advocacy reports point readers to the negotiated‑rule draft and the anticipated NPRM rather than an already‑published definitive list [1] [3]. Social posts that list many specific degrees appear to be summaries or reactions and do not substitute for the official rule text [6] [7].
Limitations: reporting to date is based on ED’s proposal and negotiated‑rule drafts and on statements from advocacy groups and news outlets; available sources do not show a finalized, departmental list posted in the Federal Register as of the cited articles [1] [3]. If you want, I can watch federal‑register postings and ED press releases and alert you when the NPRM or final rule with the official program list is published.