Which degrees did the U.S. Department of Education reclassify as non-professional in 2025, and what was the official list?

1. What the Department proposed: a tight list, not a blanket ban

The Department’s negotiated rulemaking (RISE) drafted a new, narrower regulatory definition of “professional degree,” identifying 11 primary program areas (including pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology, and clinical psychology) and some doctoral programs as the core professional degree categories—rather than the much broader, decades‑old list embedded in earlier rules ^[1]. AAU and other higher‑education groups describe this as moving from about 2,000 program labels to fewer than 600 under the proposed approach ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Which degrees were reported as removed or at risk (healthcare focus)

News outlets and professional associations report that numerous healthcare and allied‑health programs that had been treated as “professional” are now excluded or left off the draft list—most prominently nursing and advanced nursing degrees (NPs, DNPs), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, and some counseling programs ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Coverage repeatedly flags nursing as a high‑profile example: the Department “no longer considers nursing as a professional degree” in its draft, according to multiple outlets and nursing associations ^{[2] [5] [6] [4]}.

3. The official list cited in reporting (the 11 primary fields)

Reporting from the Association of American Universities and others quotes the negotiated‑rulemaking result listing 11 primary professional programs: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology, and clinical psychology ^[1]. That list was the explicit product of the RISE committee’s consensus as reported; it does not include many graduate health professions that had been treated as professional degrees previously ^[1].

4. Why this matters for student loans and access

Under H.R.1/OBBBA and implementing rules, “professional degree” status affects eligibility for higher federal loan limits; narrowing the definition reduces the number of programs whose students can borrow under those elevated caps. AAU and nursing organizations warn this will restrict loan access for students in excluded programs and could affect workforce pipelines, especially in health fields already described as facing shortages ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

5. Alternative perspectives and Department context

The Department framed its work through the RISE and negotiated‑rulemaking processes to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act provisions, using preexisting regulatory text as a starting point and aiming to align the regulatory definition with the statute and administrative priorities ^{[7] [1]}. Advocates for narrowing argue clearer, narrower categories reduce ambiguity and prevent variable treatment across campuses; critics—including professional associations and some universities—say the change is arbitrary, harms students and workforce plans, and should be broadened to include allied health programs ^{[1] [4]}.

6. What reporting does and does not show (limitations)

Available sources document the RISE committee’s draft and the 11‑program list and repeatedly report nursing and several allied‑health degrees are excluded from that draft ^{[1] [2]}. However, the sources do not present a single finalized regulatory text published in the Federal Register in full here, nor do they quote a definitive final rule—reporting describes draft outcomes and committee consensus rather than a completed, legally binding final rule ^{[1] [7]}. If you need the exact regulatory language or the Department’s formal rulemaking docket text, those specific documents are not present in the current reporting set and would be the authoritative source to confirm final lists and legal effect (not found in current reporting).

7. Immediate reactions and next steps to watch

Professional associations (e.g., nursing groups) and higher‑education leaders have publicly warned and solicited action, and stakeholders can submit comments during the anticipated notice‑and‑comment period; the Department is expected to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking opening a public comment window ^{[7] [4]}. Policymakers, universities, and advocacy groups will likely push for revisions if the final rule follows the draft consensus reported here ^{[1] [4]}.

If you want, I can pull verbatim excerpts from the AAU or RISE committee reporting quoted above or assemble a short timeline of documents and meetings to track when a final rule and the Federal Register text might appear (sources above).