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 and where is the official list published?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s late‑2025 rulemaking and implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) narrowed which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” removing many fields that had previously been treated as professional for federal loan purposes; reporting lists nursing (including MSN/DNP), physician assistant, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, social work, education (including teaching master’s), public health (MPH/DrPH), counseling/therapy, architecture, accounting and similar fields as excluded [1] [2] [3]. The Education Department published its proposed/implemented definition and lists in its rule documents and briefings tied to the RISE negotiated‑rulemaking and OBBBA implementation; coverage cites the Department’s proposal and related lists as the authoritative source [4] [5] [1].
1. What the Department actually changed — a short, sourced synopsis
The Department revised the regulatory definition of “professional degree” as part of implementing the OBBBA, narrowing the set of graduate programs eligible for the higher “professional” loan caps and thereby excluding a number of health‑care, education and technical fields from that category; multiple outlets report nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, social work (MSW/DSW), public health (MPH/DrPH), education (including teaching master’s), counseling/therapy, architecture, accounting and related programs were not retained as “professional” under the Department’s new language [1] [2] [3] [6] [7].
2. Where the official list and rule language are published
Reporting points readers to the Department’s rulemaking materials produced during the RISE negotiated‑rulemaking and subsequent departmental proposals; Inside Higher Ed described the Department releasing a proposal defining professional programs during that rulemaking, and New America summarized the Department’s final language as a regulatory text tied to the OBBBA and the CIP‑code approach — those DOE rule documents are the official source for the list and are published by the Department of Education alongside the negotiated‑rulemaking materials [4] [5]. Available sources do not provide a single URL in these snippets; search the Department of Education’s rulemaking/RISE pages and the Federal Register for the formal regulatory text [4] [5].
3. Which programs are repeatedly named as reclassified
Multiple independent news outlets and trade groups repeatedly cite the same cluster of programs being excluded: nursing (including advanced nursing degrees), nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, audiologists, speech‑language pathologists, social workers, educators (teaching master’s), public health degrees, counseling/therapy programs, architecture and accounting among others [1] [2] [3] [7] [8]. Trade and professional organizations (for example, AACN quoted in Newsweek coverage) specifically object to nursing’s exclusion, underlining the consistency in reporting across sources [9] [2].
4. How the Department defined “professional” in the new language
The Department’s approach links “professional” status to an explicit list of fields plus programs in the same four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code as those fields; New America reported the final regulatory language includes 10–11 named fields plus programs sharing four‑digit CIP codes with them, which narrows or reshuffles which programs qualify compared with prior practice [5]. Inside Higher Ed’s coverage of the RISE meetings explains the Department presented a more restrictive criteria than some committee members preferred [4].
5. Why the change matters for students and institutions
Practical consequences stem from loan caps and program eligibility: under OBBBA‑linked changes, graduate students in “professional” programs can borrow up to higher limits (reported examples: $50,000 vs. $20,500 annual caps and elimination of Grad PLUS), so degrees losing professional status will face lower borrowing limits and altered access to graduate financing — nursing groups warn this could worsen workforce shortages and reduce access to advanced training [2] [10] [11].
6. Competing perspectives and political context
The Department and supporters frame the change as applying a long‑standing regulatory definition (citing 34 CFR 668.2 as it existed when OBBBA took effect) and tightening eligibility to target federal dollars; reporting notes the Department used negotiated rulemaking and CIP‑code logic [1] [5] [4]. Critics — professional associations, state nurse organizations, and many reporters — call the exclusions arbitrary and harmful to health and education workforce recruitment, and several outlets highlight organized opposition and calls for Congressional or departmental revision [9] [12] [7].
7. Limits of current reporting and next steps for readers
Coverage in the provided sources outlines the affected fields and the Department’s rulemaking but does not include the single, directly quoted Federal Register text or a precise DOE URL in these snippets; for definitive, legally binding language and the official list, consult the Department of Education’s rulemaking docket (RISE/OBBBA materials) and the Federal Register posting of the final rule — available sources do not give that exact link here [4] [5].