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 institutions were most affected by the Department of Education's 2025 program reclassifications?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 rulemaking and implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) most directly affected graduate-level programs the agency defined as “professional degrees,” with nursing, counseling, social work and other health/education fields singled out as newly excluded or curtailed in some coverage — prompting objections from nursing groups and higher‑ed advocates [1] [2] [3]. The rule narrows which fields qualify for higher loan limits and ended the Graduate PLUS program for new borrowers, shifting borrowing caps and program administration in ways that will disproportionately hit excluded programs and their students [4] [5].
1. What the reclassification actually changed: loan access and the “professional” label
The immediate policy effect described across reporting is not a blanket school closure or accreditation action but a narrowing of the Department’s definition of “professional degree,” which determines eligibility for higher student‑loan limits and certain graduate borrowing authorities; OBBBA eliminated the old Graduate PLUS and set new, lower borrowing caps while tying the larger “professional” loan allowance to a specific, narrower set of fields and CIP codes [5] [4]. Newsweek and other outlets report that the Department’s updated list excludes many programs long treated as professional — notably nursing and several health‑care and education fields — meaning graduate students in those programs could lose access to higher loan limits previously available [1] [2].
2. Institutions and students most exposed: graduate nursing and related health programs
Coverage and stakeholder comment make clear that graduate nursing programs (MSN, DNP, CRNA, CNM, APRN, CNS) are among the most visible institutions at risk: professional associations such as the American Association of Colleges of Nursing publicly protested the exclusion, warning that the change will weaken funding pathways for these programs and could hamper workforce development [1] [3]. News outlets and specialized nursing sites underscore that programs dominated by women — nursing, counseling, social work and similar health professions — were among those left off the new “professional” list [1] [2].
3. Broader set of programs affected and the technical rule frame
The Department’s final language, as summarized by analysts, treats “professional degree” to include a limited set of fields (including clinical psychology) and any program in the same four‑digit CIP code as those fields; it also imposes criteria such as doctoral level and licensure requirements, which by design narrows the pool to a minority of doctoral programs and a small share of unique programs overall [5]. New America notes the rule covers 11 fields explicitly and that the included CIP codes would encompass roughly 47 percent of current doctoral‑level students but only 4 percent of unique programs — indicating concentrated relief for a subset and exclusion for many others [5].
4. Conflicting accounts and the status of the rulemaking
Not all reporting treats the change as an executed reclassification: fact‑checking coverage notes that as of its reporting the agency’s proposal had not fully taken effect and that the Department said final rules would be released by spring 2026 at the latest — meaning some online claims that programs were already “no longer professional degrees” overstated the immediacy of a final regulatory change [6]. Snopes emphasizes the proposal’s potential impact while cautioning that the formal rulemaking and effective dates matter for whether institutions and borrowers are immediately affected [6].
5. Who’s pushing back and why — agendas to watch
Nursing organizations, student‑aid advocates, and higher‑ed groups are framing the change as a funding and equity problem for workforce pipelines in health care; they argue excluding nursing ignores licensure and direct practice realities and could worsen shortages [1] [3] [2]. Conversely, the Department and OBBBA proponents framed the move as implementing statutory changes and applying a narrower, longstanding regulatory definition to limit graduate borrowing — an administrative and fiscal policy objective reflected in the bill’s dismantling of Graduate PLUS [5] [4].
6. Practical consequences for institutions and next steps to watch
If finalized as reported, the most affected institutions will be graduate programs in fields removed from the “professional” list — notably many nursing and allied health programs — whose students face lower borrowing caps and altered repayment/assistance eligibility; program budgets, enrollment choices, and clinical training pipelines could be pressured if federal loan access shrinks [1] [4] [2]. Stakeholders urged public comment and legal scrutiny during the rulemaking window; the Department expected to issue final rules in spring 2026, a milestone reporters and advocates flagged as decisive for when impacts become concrete [6] [5].
Limitations: reporting in the supplied set focuses on nursing and health/education fields and highlights the loan‑access mechanism; available sources do not enumerate a definitive, exhaustive list of every institution by name that will be affected [1] [5].