Which specific degree programs were added or removed from the DOE professional degrees list in 2025–2026?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025–2026 rulemaking dramatically narrowed which graduate programs it will treat as “professional,” cutting a previously large set to roughly a handful of core fields: the RISE committee and DOE signaled recognition of about 11 primary programs as professional and some doctoral programs, while a long list of health, education, and other fields (nursing, physician assistant, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, public health, social work, architecture, accounting, and education) were reported as excluded from the professional list under the proposed definition [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and advocacy groups describe the change as a reduction from roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600, with immediate consequences for loan limits and access [5] [1].
1. What the department actually proposed: a narrow list of “professional” programs
In negotiated rulemaking, the DOE and its RISE committee concluded the implementing regulations would recognize only about 11 primary program areas as professional degree programs, plus certain doctoral programs that meet specified criteria; institutions could still petition whether other programs qualify under the new criteria, but the baseline list is much smaller than historically treated as “professional” [1] [3].
2. Degrees widely reported as removed from the professional list
Multiple news outlets, professional associations and fact‑checks report that a long roster of programs historically treated as professional would be excluded under the DOE’s proposed definition. Cited exclusions include nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant programs, nurse practitioner programs, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, public health degrees (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), architecture, accounting, education/teaching master’s degrees and counseling/therapy degrees [2] [6] [4] [7] [8] [9].
3. Disagreement over the scale and the mechanics of change
Advocacy groups and outlets describe a steep numerical drop — from “roughly 2,000 programs” to “fewer than 600” — while the DOE frames the move as applying a 1965 statutory/regulatory definition and as an internal categorization tied to loan limits, not a value judgement of professions [5] [10] [2]. The department’s public statements emphasize objective criteria (level of skill beyond a bachelor’s, licensure, doctoral outcome in many cases), but critics say the interpretation is narrower than past practice and will exclude widely accepted professional credentials [3] [10].
4. Why this matters: loan caps and practical effects
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act framework being implemented, students in programs the DOE defines as “professional” can access higher borrowing caps (examples cited: up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 lifetime for professional students, versus lower caps for other graduate students); removal from the list can therefore reduce loan access and change repayment assistance eligibility, with downstream effects on career pipelines in affected fields [2] [11] [4].
5. Who is sounding the alarm — and who is defending the change
Health and education professional groups (nursing associations, public health schools, speech and audiology bodies) have publicly warned that excluding their degrees will make advanced training less attainable and risk workforce shortages, framing the change as a policy choice with real public‑health and education consequences [12] [6] [4]. The DOE and sympathetic commentators characterize the move as applying statutory definitions and a loan‑policy design matter, arguing it separates internal loan‑eligibility categories from judgments about professional value [10] [3].
6. Limits of current reporting and what is not in sources
Available sources document the list of many specific excluded programs and the negotiated decision to recognize about 11 core programs [1] [2]. Sources do not publish a single definitive, exhaustive 2025–2026 list showing every program added or every program removed line‑by‑line; a full, authoritative checklist from the Department of Education (as a final regulatory table of programs added/removed) is not found in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. What to watch next and practical advice for affected students and institutions
The rulemaking process includes further comment, final regulations and an effective date (some pieces point to final decisions by mid‑2026); institutions will need to determine program classifications under the DOE’s criteria and students and employers should monitor DOE guidance because loan eligibility and borrowing caps will hinge on the final rule [1] [6]. Professional associations are mobilizing public comments and advocacy to press for inclusion of excluded fields [12] [4].
Limitations: this summary relies on contemporary media, association statements and fact‑checks; those sources report the same broad exclusions and the RISE/DOE figure of ~11 primary programs, but a single DOE-published definitive roster of every program added/removed was not located in the provided materials [1] [2].