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.
Where can I find the Department of Education's official notice, Federal Register entry, or webpage listing the 2025 non-professional program classifications?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) has been discussing a much smaller, more specific definition of “professional degree programs” for 2025 that would shrink the list of qualifying programs and shift loan caps — news outlets and policy groups report lists that exclude nursing, public health, social work and other fields (see summaries at POLITICO and Newsweek) [1] [2]. ED’s negotiated rulemaking (the RISE committee) produced proposed language and consensus items in November 2025; ED’s negotiated‑rulemaking page and multiple higher‑education outlets document the process but the precise “official Federal Register notice or final ED webpage listing” of a definitive 2025 non‑professional program list is not present in the search results provided [3] [4].
1. What reporters are claiming and where that came from
Numerous news outlets published lists and reactions saying ED’s new definition would exclude many health‑ and social‑service fields (nursing, public health, social work, counseling, certain allied health degrees) and limit higher loan caps to a shorter set of programs such as medicine, law, dentistry, pharmacy, optometry, veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology and clinical psychology [5] [2] [1]. Reporting traces to the RISE negotiated rulemaking discussions and to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) framework that set different loan caps for “professional” vs. other graduate programs [1] [6].
2. What the Department of Education’s official materials in these results show
ED’s official negotiated rulemaking page documents the 2025–2026 negotiated rulemaking process (dates, committees and topics) and links to meeting schedules and notices — demonstrating ED is actively working rule changes through the RISE process [3]. ED press releases in mid‑November show broader policy moves (interagency agreements, funding priorities) but the provided ED pages in these results do not include a single, final Federal Register notice or standalone ED webpage that lists a finalized “2025 non‑professional program” classification table [7] [8].
3. Where reporters and associations say the definitive list came from — and the limitations
Coverage in POLITICO, Newsweek, Inside Higher Ed, professional associations (AACN, ASPPH, CSWE) and trade posts cite the negotiated‑rulemaking meetings and the department’s “proposal” or “framework” from early November as the source for specific program lists and exclusions [1] [2] [9] [10] [4]. These accounts reflect proposals and committee consensus items, not necessarily final rule text. Several professional associations explicitly describe the proposal as “exclud[ing]” fields and urge ED to use CIP code guidance instead — indicating industry pushback and that the lists are contested, not simply administrative housekeeping [9] [10].
4. Federal Register evidence (what’s present in the search results and what’s missing)
The Federal Register searches in the results show many 2025 Federal Register entries and indexes, and unrelated agency notices (postal, FAA, etc.), but none of the Federal Register items in the provided set is a clear final rule from ED that publishes a finalized classification table for “professional” vs. “non‑professional” programs for 2025 [11] [12] [13]. In short: the Federal Register presence in the provided material documents rulemaking infrastructure and other agencies’ notices but does not show a named ED final rule with a definitive program list in these results [11] [14].
5. How to locate the official ED or Federal Register source (recommended next steps)
Based on how reporting cites ED’s negotiated rulemaking, the authoritative documents you should seek are: (a) the negotiated‑rulemaking package or notices on ED’s negotiated rulemaking page (look for meeting materials, proposed regulatory text, and the “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” links) [3]; and (b) the consolidated Federal Register (or govinfo.gov) entries for ED rulemaking in November–December 2025 (the Federal Register 2025 index and daily pages are the places a final rule or NPRM would appear when published) [11] [12]. The search results show ED is running negotiated rulemaking and that news outlets reported proposals, but they do not include a single Federal Register citation publishing a final program classification [3] [11].
6. Conflicting viewpoints and political context
ED’s changed framework reflects implementation of the OBBBA statutory caps and a department preference for a short list of professional fields; critics (nursing associations, public‑health groups, social‑work education groups) argue the proposal would shrink eligible programs from thousands to a few hundred and harm workforce pipelines [2] [9] [15]. Inside Higher Ed and CSWE coverage shows internal committee disagreement over criteria (credit hours, CIP code breadth) and competing proposals — one more restrictive from ED, another broader from outside negotiators — demonstrating the rule is negotiated and politically disputed [4] [10].
7. Bottom line for your immediate question
Available sources document ED’s proposed redefinition via negotiated rulemaking and report lists circulating in news and association statements, but the search results provided do not include a clearly identified ED Federal Register notice or a single ED webpage that publishes a finalized 2025 list of “non‑professional” programs. To cite an official ED or Federal Register listing, consult ED’s negotiated‑rulemaking page for meeting materials and the Federal Register/govinfo index for any ED rule notices published after the RISE meetings [3] [11].