What reasons did the Department of Education give for removing those professional degrees in 2025–2026?
Executive summary
The Department of Education told stakeholders it narrowed the federal “professional degree” category to align with a decades‑old regulatory definition and Congress’s intent to limit graduate borrowing — moving the list from roughly 2,000 program codes to under 600 and reserving higher loan caps for a much smaller set such as medicine, law, pharmacy and dentistry [1] [2]. The change follows the One Big Beautiful Bill’s elimination of GRAD PLUS and new borrowing caps, which the department says require a narrower, historically consistent definition to curb rising graduate loan volume [3] [1].
1. What the department said: returning to an old regulatory definition
Officials and spokespeople for the Education Department have argued the agency is not inventing a new classification but is applying “the same definition of a professional degree first outlined in federal regulations in 1965,” and that the language of the proposed rules “aligns with this historical precedent” [3]. Agency representatives explicitly told reporters the federal definition “never included” many graduate programs now contested by advocates — a defense framed as restoring regulatory clarity rather than re‑ranking professions [4] [3].
2. Why the change now: Congress, spending limits and graduate loan growth
Inside Higher Ed and other reporting cite internal negotiators and department officials who say the narrower definition reflects Congress’s intent in the One Big Beautiful Bill to limit federal spending on graduate student loans; department sources point to research showing graduate borrowing rose even as undergraduate debt fell, providing the policy rationale for tighter caps [1]. The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the GRAD PLUS program and imposed new caps and a new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), forcing the department to define who qualifies for the higher “professional” loan tier [3] [5].
3. What programs lost the label — and what that means for students
The proposed or negotiated list of recognized professional degrees is far shorter and focused on traditional health‑and‑law fields (medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, law, optometry, podiatry, chiropractic, osteopathy, theology and clinical psychology in some reporting), while nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work, occupational/physical therapy, counseling, and many education and allied health programs were excluded in the department’s rollout and committee notes [6] [3] [5]. Exclusion typically means lower federal annual borrowing limits for those students, with the risk many will turn to higher‑cost private loans or forego additional training [5] [7].
4. Department’s stated policy goal: control costs, limit unlimited borrowing
A Department spokesperson and proponents of the narrower rule framed the move as curbing unlimited taxpayer exposure and instituting a definition that reflects Congress’s design to restrict graduate loan growth. The department has signaled final rules would follow the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and expects to finalize them in 2026 [3] [1].
5. Pushback from professions and public‑interest groups
Nursing and public‑health organizations have strongly contested the decision, arguing it contradicts the department’s own acknowledgment that professional programs are those that lead to licensure and direct practice; associations such as the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) say excluding advanced nursing degrees undermines workforce pipelines and decades of parity with other health professions [5] [8] [9]. Industry and labor advocates warn the loan caps could reduce the pipeline in already shortage‑prone fields [6] [7].
6. Two competing frames: fiscal restraint vs. workforce risk
The department and rule negotiators present a fiscal‑restraint frame — limiting federal exposure and returning to a narrow regulatory definition [3] [1]. Opponents present a workforce and equity frame — arguing that removing access to higher federal borrowing will make critical, often female‑dominated and public‑service professions less attainable and exacerbate shortages [5] [9] [6]. Both frames are explicit in the reporting; neither side’s claims can be adjudicated here without additional data beyond the provided sources.
7. What’s next: rulemaking, public comment and legal fights likely
The department has signaled an NPRM and a public comment period before final rules, with officials expecting final rules by spring 2026; groups representing affected fields are already mobilizing petitions and public statements, suggesting administrative and possibly legal challenges to follow [9] [3] [8]. Absent those proceedings, available sources do not mention the department’s projected long‑term workforce modeling or empirical estimates of how many students will be unable to complete degrees because of the change (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this account relies solely on the supplied reporting and official statements; assertions about long‑term labor market effects or legal outcomes are not contained in the provided sources and therefore not evaluated here (not found in current reporting).