Which specific degrees were added or removed from the DOE 2025–2026 professional degree list?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s proposed 2025–2026 definition of “professional degrees” dramatically narrows which programs qualify for the higher loan limits created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cutting the roughly 2,000-program list to fewer than 600 and excluding many health‑care and education fields [1] [2]. Multiple outlets and professional groups report that nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant, nurse practitioner, physical and occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), architecture and several counseling degrees were removed or not classified as professional under the proposal [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What changed: the DOE’s narrower definition and the scale of delisting
The Department of Education’s draft rule narrows the internal “professional degree” definition used to determine higher borrowing limits; reporting says the change reduces the list from about 2,000 programs to under 600, shrinking the set of programs eligible for the larger annual and lifetime caps [1] [2]. News outlets and advocacy groups describe this as both a numerical reduction and a substantive re‑sorting of many graduate health and education credentials [6] [8].
2. Which degrees were specifically removed or excluded in reporting
Multiple sources list similar fields left out of the proposed professional category: nursing advanced degrees (MSN, DNP), physician assistant and nurse practitioner programs, physical therapy and occupational therapy, audiology and speech‑language pathology, social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), counseling and several education master’s degrees — plus architecture in at least one report [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
3. How the change affects student borrowing caps and programs’ finances
Under OBBBA’s framework, students in programs classified as “professional” can access higher annual and lifetime borrowing limits (for example, reporting cites $50,000 annual caps for professional students versus lower caps for other graduate students under the new Repayment Assistance Plan), so removing a degree from the professional list reduces the federal loan access available to students in those fields [9] [4] [6].
4. Who is sounding the alarm — professional associations and employers
Public‑health and discipline associations have publicly criticized the move: the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health warned that excluding MPH and DrPH degrees undermines the public‑health workforce and could weaken preparedness [8]. Audiology and speech‑language pathology organizations are actively lobbying to have their fields recognized as professional degrees so students retain higher loan access [4]. Nursing organizations and news outlets report broad concern that the omission of nursing will worsen workforce shortages [7] [10].
5. The DOE’s stated rationale and legal footing
The Department points to a long‑standing regulatory definition dating to 1965 and frames its definition as an internal classification for loan limits rather than a value judgment about professions; negotiated rulemaking language and fact sheets emphasize criteria tied to licensure, doctoral‑level training, and a “level of professional skill beyond a bachelor’s” [2] [3]. Some commentators note the DOE’s reading is narrower than recent practice and that institutions may still be responsible for demonstrating whether programs meet the criteria [2] [11].
6. Disagreements in coverage and limits of available reporting
Coverage is consistent on many of the same fields being excluded, but sources differ on exact lists and legal framing: Snopes and Newsweek enumerate broad groups left out [3] [6], Newsweek and The Architect’s Paper call out architecture specifically [5] [6], while industry groups emphasize different harms [8] [4]. Available sources do not mention a single, definitive DOE public list that itemizes every individual degree program removed; reporting relies on summaries, fact sheets and negotiated‑rulemaking drafts rather than a definitive published roster [2] [3].
7. What to watch next — rulemaking and final decision timeline
The regulatory process includes negotiated rulemaking and public comment; some pieces note a final decision point in mid‑2026 and urge institutions and associations to submit comments [7] [2]. Because the DOE and Congress set differing loan mechanics under OBBBA, changes could be refined before final implementation; stakeholders are mobilizing to seek reversals or clarifications [8] [4].
Limitations: reporting across these sources converges on many exclusions but none supplies a single authoritative, line‑by‑line “added/removed” table published by DOE; available sources do not mention an official, exhaustive department list naming each program by CIP code [2] [3].