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.
What guidance did the U.S. Department of Education or OPM publish about degree equivalencies during the Trump years?
Executive summary
During the Trump administration’s higher-education agenda in 2024–2025, the Department of Education proposed narrowing which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” a change that media and advocacy groups said would exclude fields such as nursing, accounting, architecture, and education and affect loan limits tied to that label [1] [2]. The administration also issued executive actions to reshape accreditation and moved some ED functions to other agencies, while OPM guidance on degree equivalency continued to require accredited or evaluated credentials for federal hiring [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Department of Education published: redefining “professional” degrees
The Department of Education, implementing provisions tied to President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” and related rulemaking, circulated a proposed definition that would limit which graduate programs count as “professional” for purposes of higher borrowing caps and program eligibility; outlets reported that nursing, accounting, architecture, and several other fields were identified as falling outside that definition, a change critics said would reduce student loan access for those programs [1] [2] [6]. The Department publicly defended its approach as aligned with a long‑standing regulatory definition dating to 1965, and its press office told Newsweek the language “aligns with this historical precedent” even as opponents called the move a sharp break with accepted practice [7] [8].
2. Why the label matters: loan caps and program eligibility
News coverage ties the redefinition to concrete financial effects: under the legislative framework reported in mid‑2025, the administration capped graduate borrowing and limited the larger “professional” lifetime or annual caps to programs that meet the new definition—an outcome that reporters say could mean lower borrowing ceilings (e.g., $20,500/year or different lifetime caps were cited in coverage) and would eliminate or replace GRAD PLUS-style access for many students in graduate programs not deemed “professional” [1] [6]. Advocates warn this will make advanced credentials costlier for students in certain health and education fields; the Department and White House framed the changes as part of broader reforms to curb low‑value degrees and protect taxpayers [6] [3].
3. The Department’s broader accreditation agenda and institutional moves
Separately, President Trump signed executive orders in April 2025 directing broad accreditation reforms, and the Department announced actions to expand accreditor options and speed recognition of new accreditors—moves presented by the White House as intended to improve accountability and reduce costs [3] [4]. Journalists and analysts framed those steps as part of a larger push to “reform” higher education, while other reporting noted the administration has been transferring some Education Department functions to other agencies, a move critics say is part of an effort to shrink the department’s role [4] [9].
4. OPM and federal hiring: separate, steady rules on degree equivalency
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance on qualifications and equivalencies continued to emphasize that, for federal employment, degrees must be from accredited institutions or be evaluated as equivalent; OPM materials and FAQs instruct applicants that foreign degrees require credential evaluation and that non‑accredited education may not qualify unless specifically deemed equivalent [10] [5]. Those OPM standards govern federal hiring and are distinct from Education Department loan‑eligibility or program‑classification rules—changing one agency’s regulatory label doesn’t directly alter OPM’s requirement that education be accredited or officially evaluated for hiring [10] [5].
5. Disagreement and confusion in reporting: competing claims and clarifications
Media outlets ran headlines declaring “nursing is no longer a professional degree,” while the Department’s public comments and fact‑checks noted the administration is hewing to older regulatory language and that some circulating lists may be inaccurate or based on outdated CIP‑code interpretations [7] [8]. Fact‑checkers and the Department warned institutions and advocates were “crying wolf” over proposed rules, even as nursing groups and other stakeholders publicly expressed alarm and urged reversal [8] [6]. Available sources do not mention final, binding rule text published as of the cited reporting; the Department indicated final rules were expected by spring 2026 [8].
6. What to watch next: rule finalization, litigation, and agency alignment
Observers should watch for the Department’s final regulatory text (the Department said final rules could be released by spring 2026), any implementing guidance tying program CIP codes to loan caps, and whether OPM or other agencies change hiring or credential‑acceptance policies in response; litigation or congressional action could also alter outcomes [8] [4]. Stakeholders with practical exposure—state nursing boards, accreditors, universities, and federal HR offices—will be the clearest indicators of how definitions translate into students’ borrowing options and federal hiring practice; available sources do not mention a definitive, finalized change to OPM’s equivalency standards stemming from the Education Department’s proposed professional‑degree definition [5].
Limitations: reporting in the provided sources mixes proposed rule language, White House executive orders, and media summaries; several outlets interpret political intent and financial impacts differently, and the Department’s own statements contest some media characterizations [1] [7] [8].