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.
Which specific programs did the Department of Education reclassify as non-professional in 2025?
Executive summary
Available sources show the U.S. Department of Education finalized a regulatory definition of “professional degree” tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) rulemaking in 2025 and that the change has prompted controversy—especially over graduate nursing programs being excluded from “professional” status and losing associated loan benefits [1] [2]. Reporting and advocacy outlets list many fields alleged to be reclassified (nursing, physician assistant, therapy, public health, education, social work, IT/engineering, business, arts, audiology, speech-language pathology) but that list appears in social posts and reaction pieces rather than a single official Department of Education publication in the provided results [3] [4] [2].
1. What the Department of Education actually did, per the rulemaking record
The Department’s final regulatory language defines “professional degree” by keeping certain enumerated fields and by including programs that share specific four‑digit CIP codes with those fields; that final language was produced as part of implementing OBBBA and the RISE negotiated rulemaking [1]. NewAmerica’s summary says the Department’s definition explicitly includes ten named fields plus Clinical Psychology and any program that falls within the same four‑digit CIP code as those fields [1].
2. Nursing: the flashpoint of public reaction
Several outlets and professional groups reacted strongly to reporting that graduate nursing programs—MSN, DNP, nurse practitioner tracks, CRNA, midwifery and similar—are being treated as outside the “professional degree” designation in the Department’s action; Nurse.org and Newsweek frame the exclusion as directly affecting graduate nursing students’ access to higher federal loan limits and loan‑forgiveness pathways [2] [4]. Nursing organizations (quoted in Newsweek) said excluding nursing contradicts the Department’s recognition that professional programs lead to licensure and direct practice [4].
3. Lists circulating on social media vs. formal, cited lists
A widely circulated social post enumerates a long list of degrees purportedly reclassified (nursing, PA, OT/PT, counseling, public health, education, social work, IT/cybersecurity, engineering, business, arts, audiology, speech‑language pathology) and claims the change was “finalized July 1, 2025” [3]. The Department’s formal rule language summarized by NewAmerica, however, frames “professional degree” around a narrower set of enumerated fields plus CIP‑code groupings; the provided summaries do not reproduce the social‑media list as an official Department list [1] [3].
4. Who is raising alarms and why
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) and advocacy outlets describe the proposed change as potentially cutting off federal loan access for whole fields and disproportionately affecting workers in fields where women predominate; NASFAA and commenters explicitly frame the change as a sweeping regulatory shift with distributional and workforce impacts [5]. Nursing groups warn the change could worsen workforce shortages and undermine parity with other health professions [4] [2].
5. Scope and limits of the available reporting
Available sources do not provide a single Department of Education document listing each program individually reclassified as “non‑professional.” NewAmerica’s and NASFAA’s explanations focus on the new definitional approach (enumerated fields plus CIP equivalence) rather than a program‑by‑program voucher [1] [5]. Social posts and reaction pieces present candidate lists, but those are not corroborated by a formal table or roster from the Department in the provided material [3].
6. How to interpret the technical mechanism (CIP codes matter)
The Department’s method means programs sharing a four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code with an enumerated professional field will be treated similarly; conversely, programs outside those CIP clusters could lose “professional” status even if their job titles look professional—this is the technical root of disputed inclusions/exclusions and explains why some observers see surprising omissions like nursing [1] [4].
7. Practical consequences flagged by advocates
Advocates and outlets say the practical impacts include loss of higher loan limits for graduate students previously treated as pursuing professional degrees and reduced access to targeted loan relief; many commenters on NASFAA’s site urge the Department to reconsider because of equity and workforce implications [2] [5].
8. Bottom line and what’s still unclear
The Department’s finalized definitional approach is documented in rulemaking summaries, but available reporting here does not present an authoritative, itemized list of every program reclassified as “non‑professional.” Reaction pieces and social posts provide candidate lists and specific claims (notably for nursing), but those candidate lists are not shown as official Department lists in the provided sources [1] [3] [2]. To confirm exactly which specific degree programs lost “professional” status, consult the Department’s official regulatory text or a Department‑issued program list—available sources do not mention a standalone, definitive roster in the materials you provided [1] [3].