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 exactly did the Department of Education say about nursing not being a professional degree and where is the guidance published?
Executive summary
The Department of Education has proposed a new, narrower regulatory definition of “professional degree” that — according to reporting and statements from nursing groups — would exclude most nursing graduate programs and sharply limit how much those students can borrow under federal loan rules (reports cite caps around $20,500 per year versus higher limits for programs the department keeps on its list) [1] [2] [3]. Major nursing organizations including the American Nurses Association and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing publicly warned the department that the change would restrict access to graduate nursing education and threaten workforce capacity [4] [5].
1. What the Department of Education said — the basic claim and where it appears
Journalists report the Department of Education is advancing a proposal that redefines which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” and that under the new definition nursing would not be listed as a professional degree program [1] [6]. The department’s press office framed the change as reflecting a “consistent definition” and historical precedent, according to at least one outlet quoting Education Department press secretary Ellen Keast [6]. Reporting points to the department’s rulemaking and RISE committee work implementing language in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) as the vehicle for the change [3] [7].
2. What this actually changes for students — loan caps and program lists
Coverage says the proposal would shrink the roster of programs labeled “professional” from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 programs, removing many health‑care graduate tracks including advanced nursing degrees, physician assistant programs, occupational therapy and audiology [7]. Multiple outlets report the practical effect is lower federal borrowing for students in excluded programs: graduate nursing students could be limited to borrowing roughly $20,500 per year (the standard cap for most non‑professional graduate programs) instead of the higher aggregate amounts previously available to professional degree students [2] [8].
3. Where the guidance or proposal is published (and who’s involved)
The shift is being handled through the Department’s rulemaking under implementation of the OBBBA and through internal committees such as the RISE committee, which reportedly agreed on draft definitions in mid‑November 2025; reporting frames this as part of the department’s formal proposal stream rather than an informal statement [3] [7]. Available sources describe the change as a proposed rule and comment process tied to that legislation and the Department’s regulatory roll‑out rather than a single short press release [1] [3]. Exact links to a Federal Register posting or a single DOE webpage are not cited in the material provided; available sources do not mention the specific URL or Federal Register citation for the published proposal.
4. Reactions from nursing organizations and stakeholders
The American Nurses Association called on the Department to revise the definition to explicitly include nursing and warned that exclusion “jeopardizes efforts to strengthen and expand the U.S. nursing workforce,” arguing limits would restrict access to graduate training and leadership pipelines [4]. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing said it was “deeply concerned” and alarmed over proposed limits that would significantly reduce student loan access for nursing [5]. Op‑eds and nursing‑sector outlets characterize the move as likely to reduce enrollments and threaten care access in underserved areas [9] [10].
5. Alternative perspectives and stated departmental rationale
Reporting contains the Department’s stated rationale that the proposed definition aligns with a long‑standing, consensus‑based regulatory approach and historical precedent; the department framed the change as clarifying which programs were meant to be designated “professional” in federal rules [6]. Some outlets present the department’s action as part of a broader effort to “streamline federal lending” and curb graduate borrowing that the administration views as overly broad — a policy aim the department has cited in reforming professional degree lists [2].
6. What is uncertain or not covered in current reporting
Available sources do not mention the exact text of the proposed regulatory amendment, the specific Federal Register notice number, nor do they provide the full DOE guidance document or a direct link to the finalized rule in a single citation — they summarize committee action, press statements, and reactions [1] [3]. The long‑term legal and implementation timeline (final rule date, comment deadlines, or judicial challenges) is not detailed in the supplied reports; available sources do not mention those procedural milestones [1] [7].
7. Why this matters — practical and policy implications
If put into effect, reporters and nursing leaders say the reclassification could cap typical graduate nursing borrowing at the lower non‑professional graduate rate (about $20,500 annually), reduce access to advanced practice education, constrain faculty pipelines, and complicate care delivery in underserved areas — consequences nursing groups warn will worsen workforce shortages [2] [4] [3]. The department characterizes the move as restoring historical consistency in the definition of “professional” degrees [6], a policy tradeoff with clear disagreement between the department and nursing stakeholders [4] [5].
If you want, I can search the Federal Register and the Department of Education site for the actual proposed rule text and the official publication so we can quote the precise regulatory language and citation.