What federal changes to nursing education funding occurred between 2017 and 2020 under the Trump administration?
Executive summary
Between 2017 and 2020 the Trump administration initiated a rewrite of which graduate programs count as “professional degrees” for federal student‑loan rules and proposed shrinking or eliminating certain graduate loan programs — moves that would exclude many nursing graduate programs from higher loan caps and impose new annual and aggregate limits (e.g., proposals cited $20,500 per year and $100,000 total for some graduate programs) [1] [2]. Nursing organizations immediately warned these changes would restrict funding for advanced nursing education; the Education Department framed the effort as simplifying repayment and reining in graduate loan borrowing [3] [4].
1. What the policy change did — reclassifying “professional” degrees
The Department of Education issued a new definition of “professional degree” that narrowed eligibility to a short list of programs explicitly named in the regulation, rather than treating the 1965 statutory examples as illustrative; under the administration’s approach, degrees not on that list — including many nursing programs — would not count as professional programs for purposes of the higher loan caps [3] [1]. Several outlets report that the effect was to place nursing, physician assistant, physical therapy and other fields outside the protected list [3] [5].
2. How loan access and caps would change for nursing students
The administration’s restructuring of loan rules was tied to plans that would eliminate or constrain graduate loan vehicles such as Grad PLUS and cap Parent PLUS loans, with new borrowing limits reported in coverage: examples cited by multiple outlets included an annual cap of about $20,500 and a $100,000 aggregate cap for some graduate students left outside the “professional” list [2] [1]. News coverage says the Education Department asserted most nursing students are in programs unaffected by the caps, while nursing groups disputed that characterization [1] [4].
3. Administration rationale and Department of Education messaging
The Education Department framed the change as a way to place “commonsense limits and guardrails” on future borrowing, simplify repayment, and pressure institutions to reduce tuition growth — arguing the 1965 statutory examples should be treated literally rather than expansively [3] [4]. A department spokesperson reportedly pushed back against some reporting, calling certain claims “fake news,” reflecting a communications contest over intent and impact [6] [7].
4. Reaction from nursing and health‑care organizations
National nursing groups — notably the American Nurses Association and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing — publicly warned that excluding nursing from the definition of professional degrees would “severely restrict access to critical funding” for graduate nursing education and threaten workforce capacity, especially amid reported staffing shortages [8] [4] [5]. Coverage captured sharp pushback from nursing educators and leaders who said the policy risks reducing the domestic pipeline of advanced nurses [8] [1].
5. Disputes, nuance and fact‑checking in reporting
Fact‑checking and deeper coverage noted two key complications: first, the 1965 law lists examples of professional degrees but does not purport to be exhaustive; second, some media lists circulating about specific programs may have been outdated or misread the agency’s evolving proposals [9] [3]. Snopes and other reporting flagged that earlier and later drafts differed and that social‑media lists sometimes mixed proposals and older material, so the practical universe of affected programs depended on the final regulatory language [9].
6. The practical timeline and implementation questions
Multiple stories reported the proposed loan caps and definitional changes would take effect the following July and tied them to the Trump administration’s broader “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” reforms, but coverage also emphasized that rulemaking and finalization were ongoing at the time — meaning precise implementation and exemptions remained in flux [2] [10]. The Education Department’s statements that nursing “was never on the list” in some versions underscore that timing and drafting choices changed how many students would actually be affected [10].
7. What reporting does not establish (limits)
Available sources do not provide the final regulatory text or a definitive accounting of how many nursing students ultimately lost access to higher loan caps under a completed rule; they also do not quantify long‑term workforce impacts tied causally to these proposals (not found in current reporting). Where outlets differ — for example, on whether nursing was simply never listed or was removed — the discrepancy reflects evolving proposals and agency statements rather than settled fact [9] [10].
Bottom line: the administration’s 2017–2020 policy push narrowed the federal conception of “professional” graduate programs and proposed shrinking graduate loan access — a change the Education Department framed as fiscal restraint but that nursing groups warned would restrict graduate nursing funding and risk future workforce shortages. Reporting shows the debate involved shifting drafts, competing interpretations of a 1965 statute, and strong institutional pushback [3] [8] [1].