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 credentials were removed from professional designation by the Department of Education in 2025 and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education in 2025 removed nursing from its list of programs counted as “professional degree” programs for certain loan-eligibility and aggregate loan‑limit purposes; the department says this redefinition is part of implementing the administration’s higher‑education and student‑loan reforms and reallocating roles across agencies (Newsweek reports the nursing change; the Education Department frames reassignments as part of a broader plan to break up the department) [1] [2]. Coverage shows the nursing decision sits inside a far larger, contested effort to transfer core Education Department offices and programs to other federal agencies—including Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior and State—which officials say will streamline services and focus funding, while critics call it dismantling the agency [2] [3] [4].
1. What credential was changed — a narrow but consequential move
Reporting identifies nursing programs as specifically excluded from the Department of Education’s definition of “professional degree” for purposes tied to student‑loan rules and the $200,000 aggregate loan limit for professional students; Newsweek describes the change as the Education Department “excluding nursing as a ‘professional degree’ program” in late 2025 [1]. The Newsweek piece frames the change as part of the administration’s implementation of its loan‑policy package and indicates stakeholders—nursing groups—view the decision as a threat to access for advanced nursing education amid workforce shortages [1].
2. Why the Department of Education says it changed the label
The Education Department’s public materials and statements around this period emphasize broader policy goals: reorganizing which federal agencies administer key programs, refocusing federal support on workforce needs, and implementing new student‑loan and grant frameworks. The department’s press release about six interagency agreements says the Labor Department will take on a greater role administering postsecondary grants to align grantmaking with workforce shortages and credentialing needs, positioning such moves as efficiency and workforce policy rather than targeted attacks on specific professions [2]. Available sources do not quote an Education Department press release naming nursing by itself as the administrative rationale; Newsweek reports the nursing outcome within the larger implementation of loan rules [1] [2].
3. The broader context: dismantling, reassigning, or streamlining?
Multiple outlets document a coordinated effort to shift major Education Department functions to other agencies—Elementary and Secondary and Postsecondary offices to Labor, foreign medical accreditation and the Child Care Access Means Parents program to HHS, Indian education to Interior, and international education programs to State—through interagency agreements the department characterizes as breaking up federal “bureaucracy” and returning education to the states [3] [2] [4]. Proponents, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, say these steps will cut red tape and better align grants with labor market needs [3] [2]. Critics and many education stakeholders call the moves an attempt to dismantle or shrink the department and warn of slashed resources and weakened oversight [4] [5] [6].
4. Competing perspectives and political framing
Supporters point to Project 2025 and the administration’s executive order seeking to phase out the Education Department, framing interagency agreements as a lawful, practical “proof of concept” to show Congress a path for permanent transfer of functions [3] [7]. Opponents—teachers’ unions, Democratic officials, education advocates—argue the reassignments undercut federal protections and supports (civil‑rights enforcement, minority‑serving institution grants) and are driven by a political agenda to eliminate a federal role in education [3] [6] [5]. Some state officials interpret the IAAs as largely cosmetic, leaving oversight with ED while altering public messaging [8].
5. What the reporting does and does not show (limitations and gaps)
Newsweek reports the nursing exclusion; major outlets document the sweeping interagency agreements and reassignments but do not publish a single, consolidated ED legal memo explaining why nursing specifically lost “professional degree” status or the exact regulatory text in the same stories [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide the department’s internal legal justification for changing the professional‑degree definition as it applies to nursing, nor do they present the text of the specific loan‑program rule change; those documents are “not found in current reporting” among the provided pieces [1] [2]. Where sources disagree, the dispute is over motive and consequence: ED frames efficiency and workforce alignment [2] while critics see ideological dismantling and practical harm to sectors like nursing [1] [6].
6. Practical implications to watch next
If nursing is no longer counted as a “professional degree” for aggregate loan limits, graduate nursing students could face different loan caps or eligibility—which stakeholders say would reduce access to advanced clinical training just as the country confronts nursing shortages [1]. Meanwhile, moving program administration to Labor, HHS, Interior and State could change how grants are awarded and monitored; the department claims funds from Congress are unchanged, but critics warn the substance of oversight and supports could shift [2] [9]. Follow‑up reporting to watch: the specific regulatory text or guidance that excludes nursing, departmental legal memos cited to justify the change, and Congressional or court responses to these interagency transfers [1] [2].
Sources cited: Newsweek on nursing change [1]; U.S. Department of Education press release on six interagency agreements [2]; New York Times, Chalkbeat, Forbes, The Guardian and others on the broader reassignments and political context [3] [4] [6] [5].