Which specific professional degrees were removed from the Department of Education’s 2025–2026 list and why?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s late‑2025 proposal narrows its list of “professional degree” programs to about 11 fields — removing many graduate programs that had previously been treated as professional for federal loan limits, including nursing (MSN, DNP and some advanced practice roles), public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, many counseling and education master’s degrees, accounting and architecture among others [1] [2] [3]. The administration says it is applying a narrower, decades‑old regulatory definition to limit which programs qualify for higher borrowing caps under the One Big Beautiful Bill, while colleges, professional associations and media outlets warn the change will reduce graduate borrowing access for those fields and could hurt workforce pipelines [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Department of Education did and the tangible change
In November 2025 the Department proposed a tightened definition of “professional degree” used to decide who can access higher federal graduate loan limits; the agency published a list of 11 degree fields it considers professional (including law, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, chiropractic, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and similar programs) and thereby excluded many other programs that had commonly been treated as professional for loan purposes [2] [6]. That reclassification reduces the number of programs counted as professional from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600, according to reporting and commentary [7].
2. Which specific degrees were removed (examples drawn from reporting)
Multiple outlets and professional groups report that nursing (MSN, DNP, nurse practitioner and some clinical doctorates), public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling and many education master’s degrees are no longer on the Department’s professional list under the proposal [1] [8] [2] [6]. Newsweek, Nurse.org and local reporting list nursing, accounting, architecture and education among the notable omissions [5] [8] [9].
3. Why the Department says it made the change
The Department frames the move as applying an existing regulatory definition — tracing back to federal language and precedent — to determine which programs “signify both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree.” It says this is an internal classification for loan limits, not a value judgment about any profession, and argues the change will help curb graduate borrowing and reduce student debt under the One Big Beautiful Bill framework [2] [3].
4. What the reclassification affects in practice (loan mechanics)
Under the proposed Repayment Assistance Plan and new caps, students in designated “professional” programs would be eligible for higher annual and aggregate federal borrowing — reported figures include up to $50,000 per year and $200,000 total for professional programs versus lower caps (about $20,500 per year and $100,000 total) for other graduate programs. Removing a program from the professional list thus changes the maximum federal borrowing available to students in that field [6] [8] [9].
5. Pushback from professional organizations and institutions
Nursing and public‑health organizations publicly criticized the change, saying excluding degrees like the MSN, DNP, MPH and DrPH will make graduate education less attainable and could weaken healthcare and public‑health workforce pipelines; the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and associations for schools of public health urged the Department to reverse or clarify the move [5] [4] [8]. Reporting shows industry groups frame the decision as inconsistent with long‑standing professional licensure and practice norms [5] [4].
6. The Department’s counterarguments and data points
The Department’s “Myth vs. Fact” document emphasizes the definition is internal and points to its data that 95% of nursing students borrow below new annual limits, suggesting most nursing students would not be directly affected by the caps — a position the agency uses to downplay predicted workforce impacts [3]. The agency also notes the list relies on a 1965 regulatory framework for examples of professional degrees [3] [6].
7. Limitations, open questions and how this will proceed
Available sources indicate the Department will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and open a public comment period before the rule is final; the rule’s practical effects depend on that process and any adjustments after feedback [4] [2]. Precise program‑by‑program lists and final language remain in flux in reporting, so whether a specific sub‑specialty or credential will be included or excluded is not settled in the current coverage [2] [4].
8. What to watch next and how stakeholders are responding
Expect formal NPRM publication and a 30‑day or longer comment window, lobbying from professional associations and state officials, and likely legal and political challenges given the stakes for workforce pipelines; media reporting and advocacy groups are already organizing petitions and urging Congress and the Department to reconsider or clarify which degrees remain “professional” [4] [5] [8].
Limitations: reporting varies on exact program lists and on claims about who will be affected; my summary relies solely on the cited coverage and departmental statements and does not include outside documents or subsequent updates not present in the provided sources [1] [2] [3].