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.
What criteria and legal authority did the Department of Education use to reclassify programs as non-professional in 2025?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) proposed in late 2025 to narrow which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” a change that would remove many fields — including nursing, social work, public health and several allied-health programs — from the higher federal borrowing limits that apply to professional-degree students (examples and lists reported by Newsweek, Nurse.com, and others) [1] [2] [3]. ED says it relied on an existing regulatory definition from 34 CFR 668.2 and on a rulemaking process tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), with the RISE committee producing proposed language and a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the change [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What legal authority ED cites: returning to an existing federal regulatory definition
The Department is invoking an existing federal regulatory definition of “professional degree” — the language in 34 CFR 668.2 as interpreted in its rulemaking — rather than creating a wholly new statutory category, and it tied that interpretation to the requirements of OBBBA enacted July 4, 2025 [4] [7]. Reporting notes the Department used the regulation “as it was in effect on the date the bill was enacted,” and that the agency’s approach is implemented through rulemaking [7] [4].
2. How ED translated the regulation into program lists and criteria
In the Department’s final language reported by analysts, a “professional degree” would include a narrowed set of fields (medicine, law, dentistry, pharmacy, and a limited set of other fields) and extend to programs sharing the same four-digit CIP code as those fields; it also emphasizes program level (doctorate requiring roughly six years of higher education including two post‑baccalaureate years) and a licensure requirement for professional status [7]. Multiple outlets report the draft effectively restricts professional status to fewer high‑cost clinical doctoral programs, with other graduate programs reclassified as “graduate” rather than “professional” [8] [7].
3. The administrative route: committee, NPRM and public comment
Rather than an immediate unilateral relabeling, ED convened the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee to craft proposed definitions and planned a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that opens a public-comment period (ASPPH coverage and other reporting) [6]. Coverage notes the RISE committee reached “preliminary consensus” and that a formal NPRM would follow, giving stakeholders an opportunity to submit comments [6].
4. Practical criteria used to decide which programs lose “professional” status
Coverage highlights three practical anchors ED used in its draft: [9] field lists tied to specific four-digit CIP codes (programs sharing those codes can qualify), [10] program level and length (doctoral level with roughly six years total, including post‑bac study), and [11] an expectation of professional licensure as part of the credential’s purpose [7]. News reports and analysis explain these criteria combine to exclude many master’s-level and some doctoral programs that have historically been treated as professional [1] [7].
5. Stakes: borrowing limits and downstream effects
Reclassification matters because OBBBA’s new loan architecture ties larger lifetime borrowing caps ($200,000 professional vs. $100,000 graduate, with annual limits) to the “professional” label; moving programs out of the professional category would lower the borrowing ceiling for students in those fields and could change institutions’ financial-aid classifications for graduate students [7] [5]. Industry groups (NASFAA, professional associations) warn of effects on enrollment and workforce supply; reporting records strong opposition from nursing and public-health organizations [2] [12] [6].
6. Disagreements, political context and claims to watch
Some reporting and fact-checking emphasize the Department’s reliance on an older regulatory definition but also note the agency’s interpretation is narrower than many stakeholders expect; Snopes explicitly cautioned that, as of its write-up, the proposal had not completed rulemaking and that the agency’s narrower interpretation reflects a different reading of the 1965 regulatory language [4]. News outlets document backlash (e.g., social posts calling the move symbolic downgrading) and policy analysts point to OBBBA as the statutory driver that forced ED to apply a definition for loan-limits purposes [1] [7].
7. Limitations in current reporting and what’s not yet clear
Available sources do not mention the final, legally binding text of any adopted regulation (the NPRM and comment period were still pending in these reports), nor do they provide a full, definitive list of every CIP code or program that will be reclassified after rulemaking concludes [6] [7]. Claims that ED “stopped counting” programs immediately or that the change already irrevocably eliminated borrower eligibility are contradicted or cautioned against by fact-checkers and reporting which say the rulemaking was not final at time of reporting [4].
Bottom line: ED’s stated legal basis is applying an existing federal regulatory definition (34 CFR 668.2) and OBBBA’s statutory trigger, operationalized through RISE committee recommendations and a forthcoming NPRM; the tangible criteria center on CIP codes, program level/length, and licensure requirements, but the final, binding decisions depend on the formal rulemaking record and any changes after public comment [4] [7] [6].