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 statutory or regulatory citations did the Department of Education use to justify the reclassification of professional degrees?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent proposal to narrow which programs qualify as “professional degrees” rests on implementing H.R.1 provisions and a committee-developed regulatory definition; reporting and advocacy groups say it would reduce programs deemed professional from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 and cut the list to about 11 core programs plus some doctorates [1] [2]. Coverage shows the department and its RISE committee relied on rulemaking tied to H.R.1 and cited the federal regulatory definition in 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 as precedent for a narrower interpretation, though some outlets say the change was proposed rather than already final [3] [1].
1. What the Department moved to do — a short description
The Education Department’s Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee produced draft regulatory language to implement student‑loan provisions in H.R.1 that would sharply reduce the number of programs classified as “professional,” excluding many nursing, public health, counseling, education, and other graduate programs from that category and thereby changing borrowers’ loan limits [1] [4] [2].
2. Statutory and regulatory hooks the Department cited
Reporting and fact‑checks note the Department pointed to existing federal definitions — specifically the definition of “professional degree” in the Code of Federal Regulations — as the legal basis for its narrower reading; Snopes cites 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 as the regulation the agency claims it is using in interpretation [3]. In parallel, multiple observers say the RISE committee framed its draft rules as implementing H.R.1’s student‑loan provisions, so H.R.1’s statutory language is the legislative anchor driving the regulatory revision [1].
3. How reporters and stakeholders describe the legal maneuver
News outlets and higher‑education groups frame the move as rulemaking to implement Congress’s H.R.1 changes: the RISE committee negotiated draft regulations "to implement student loan provisions in a bill (H.R.1) that Congress passed earlier this year," and the proposed rules would recognize only about 11 primary professional programs plus some doctorates [1]. Snopes emphasizes that while the Department says it is relying on the 1965‑era regulatory definition (34 C.F.R. § 668.2), the agency’s interpretation is narrower than past practice [3].
4. Which citations are explicitly named in coverage — and which are not
Coverage explicitly names H.R.1 and the RISE committee’s draft regulations as the policy vehicles [1]. Snopes explicitly references 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 when summarizing the Department’s claim of using the existing regulatory definition [3]. Available sources do not list other specific statutory citations (for example, a particular subsection of the Higher Education Act) beyond the general invocation of H.R.1 and the cited CFR provision; those additional statutory references are not found in current reporting [1] [3].
5. Points of dispute among reporters, agencies, and advocates
Advocacy and professional groups — nursing, public health, university associations — uniformly contest both the substance and the legal reading: they argue the proposal contradicts decades of precedent that treated fields like nursing and public health as professional degrees and warn of practical harms to workforce pipelines if loan access shrinks [4] [5] [1]. The Department, per fact‑checks, says it is relying on an existing federal definition (34 C.F.R. § 668.2) but is applying it more narrowly; Snopes underscores that as of its write‑up the change was proposed and not yet finalized [3].
6. Why these citations matter in practical terms
Which statutory or regulatory text the Department invokes determines who qualifies for higher graduate borrowing limits: H.R.1 set policy that must be implemented by regulation, and 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 contains the operative definitional language the agency says it is using — the combination would legally justify trimming the approved list and thus alter loan eligibility for affected students [1] [3].
7. Transparency and next steps to watch
Observers advise monitoring the formal notice‑and‑comment rulemaking record from the Education Department and any agency statements that attach legal citations beyond H.R.1 and 34 C.F.R. § 668.2; public comments from NASFAA, AACN, ASPPH, AAU and others are already framing the debate and will be part of the administrative record [6] [5] [4] [1]. Snopes and news reports caution that much public reaction so far responds to a proposal rather than a finished regulatory change [3].
Limitations: reporting in the provided set cites H.R.1 and 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 as the principal legal hooks and documents the RISE committee’s draft regulation, but available sources do not provide the Department’s full legal memorandum or a complete list of every statutory subsection relied upon; those primary legal texts are not found in current reporting [1] [3].