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.
How did the Department of Education respond to the reclassification of professional degrees under Trump?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) under the Trump administration rewrote who counts as a “professional” student and which programs qualify for higher loan limits as part of broader student‑loan regulation changes; ED negotiators reached draft rules that would recognize roughly 10–11 primary programs as professional degrees and that tie into lifetime borrowing caps of $100,000 for graduate students and $200,000 for professional students (AAU and Business Insider coverage) [1] [2]. These rulemaking moves happened alongside a separate, administration‑wide effort to shift many ED functions to other agencies and to downsize the department (The New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, POLITICO, Federal News Network, ED press materials) [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. ED’s regulatory response: narrowing the definition of “professional” degrees
ED convened a negotiated‑rulemaking committee and produced draft regulatory language that sharply narrows which degree programs count as “professional,” effectively limiting which students are eligible for the higher statutory borrowing cap for professional degrees. The Association of American Universities reports that the department and the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee agreed to recognize only 11 primary programs (and some doctoral programs) as professional degrees, a definition that would cut out many graduate programs from the $200,000 professional cap and instead subject them to the $100,000 graduate cap [1].
2. Which programs were singled out — and why it matters
Business Insider’s reporting on ED’s draft text lists about 10 programs that the department proposed as receiving the higher professional cap — pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, and theology — and notes ED framed the change as an effort to curb excessive borrowing [2]. The choice of programs matters because it changes students’ borrowing limits and can influence enrollment decisions, institutional finances, and the use of private loans if federal borrowing is inadequate [2] [1].
3. Financial policy tied to legislation: H.R. 1 and lifetime caps
The regulatory move doesn’t stand alone: it implements student‑loan provisions in H.R. 1, a law that sets a lifetime cap of $100,000 for graduate students and $200,000 for professional students. AAU and other university groups explicitly link the department’s draft rules to implementing that statutory framework and warn the rules will “curtail the number of programs” eligible for the higher cap [1].
4. Higher‑education groups’ reaction: warnings about access and affordability
Leading research universities and higher‑education advocates publicly warned that narrowing the professional definition threatens access to advanced programs because students in excluded fields may face tighter federal borrowing limits, potentially forcing them to defer education, reduce course loads, or rely on costlier private loans. AAU framed the proposal as a threat to access and urged reconsideration [1].
5. ED’s internal framing and negotiated‑rulemaking details
During the negotiated‑rulemaking sessions ED staff also clarified related technical matters — for example what counts as a change in “program of study,” and who qualifies as a “professional student” — attempting to translate statutory terms into operational language for financial‑aid administration (NASFAA coverage of the sessions summarizes these exchanges) [9].
6. Broader administrative context: dismantling the department and shifting duties
These student‑loan regulatory changes occurred while the Trump administration was simultaneously moving to offload many ED functions to other agencies and to shrink the department’s footprint. Multiple outlets report the administration signed interagency agreements and announced plans to shift K–12 and higher‑education responsibilities to Labor, HHS, State, Interior and others — actions the White House and ED describe as “breaking up the federal education bureaucracy” and “returning education to the states” (ED press release, Federal News Network, NPR, NYT, POLITICO) [8] [7] [5] [3] [6].
7. Legal and political pushback: questions about authority
Opponents raised legal questions, noting Congress located some offices inside ED and arguing the White House cannot unilaterally relocate statutory functions; reporting from NPR and others records these objections and the risk of legal challenges to the broader reorganization even as ED pursues negotiated rulemaking on loans [5].
8. What the sources don’t say
Available sources do not mention final, published regulatory text taking effect, nor do they report the outcome of any litigation or congressional action specifically overturning ED’s draft professional‑degree definition; sources describe draft regulations and negotiated agreements but stop short of final implementation details (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: ED’s response to the professional‑degree question was procedural and consequential — narrowing definitions through negotiated rulemaking to implement statutory borrowing caps — and it came at the same time the administration pursued a larger agenda to disperse ED functions to other agencies, prompting pushback on policy and legal grounds [1] [2] [5] [7].