Which academic fields were reclassified as non-professional under the Trump administration's immigration policy?

1. What the question likely refers to — policy context and contested terminology

Journalists and advocates have used phrases like “reclassify,” “de‑professionalize,” or “treat certain academic fields as less eligible for work-authorized benefits” to describe Trump-era moves to limit post‑study work (OPT/STEM OPT) and to increase scrutiny of fields deemed critical or sensitive; Project 2025 and agency actions frame OPT as a “backdoor guest‑worker program” and call for curbs on STEM OPT, signaling policy intent to narrow eligible fields or durations ^{[2] [4]}.

2. What the sources actually document about fields and focus areas

Reporting and policy trackers emphasize heightened scrutiny focused on STEM and other “critical” fields rather than enumerating a converted list of non‑professional majors: the Presidents’ Alliance overview states the earlier Trump administration increased scrutiny especially in STEM fields ^[1]; NAFSA and other higher‑education organizations describe broad policy shifts that affect F‑1 and J‑1 students and visa vetting, with particular attention to critical fields ^{[5] [3]}. These items show focus on STEM but do not supply a formal catalogue of reclassified fields ^{[5] [1] [3]}.

3. Claims of a formal reclassification — not found in current reporting

None of the provided sources show an executive order, DHS or State Department regulation, or Federal Register notice that formally “reclassifies” named academic fields from professional to non‑professional for immigration benefit eligibility; search results track many executive actions and policy proposals but do not contain the kind of official, enumerated list implied by the question (available sources do not mention a formal reclassification list) ^{[6] [7] [3]}.

4. Where change has been documented: OPT/STEM OPT and vetting

What is documented is active effort to restrict OPT/STEM OPT (draft rules, shorter durations, fewer eligible fields and tougher audits are reported) and increased vetting of student visa holders, including expanded social‑media checks and countrybased travel bans that affect admissions — actions that de facto narrow post‑study work options and target students in STEM/critical fields, but stop short of naming a specific “non‑professional” list in the available materials ^{[2] [8] [3]}.

5. Advocates’ and institutions’ responses — evidence of perceived impact

Higher‑education associations (NAFSA, ACE, Presidents’ Alliance) and university groups have documented declines in international student numbers and pushed back against pausing visa interviews and plans to revoke visas, indicating the sector perceives policy moves as hostile to students — especially in STEM — but these sources present impact data and advocacy rather than an announced field‑by‑field reclassification ^{[9] [5] [10] [11]}.

6. Competing perspectives: security/sovereign control vs. economic and academic arguments

Administration documents and Project 2025 proponents frame tighter rules as national‑security and labor‑market protections (e.g., scrutiny of “critical fields” and labeling OPT a loophole) ^{[4] [2]}. Higher‑education groups argue the changes reduce U.S. competitiveness, harm enrollment, and disrupt research collaborations ^{[5] [10]}. Both perspectives appear across the sources; no source supplies a single authoritative list resolving this dispute ^{[2] [10]}.

7. What to watch next — where an authoritative list would appear

If a formal reclassification of fields were enacted, it would most likely appear in a DHS or Department of Education regulation, a Federal Register notice, or an explicit agency rule on OPT/STEM OPT eligibility — these are the document types tracked by the Immigration Policy Tracking Project and legal analyses that the sources cite ^{[7] [6]}. Current trackers (NAFSA, IPTP, Presidents’ Alliance) are the best sources to watch for any official list ^{[5] [7] [3]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

Available reporting and trackers document significant attempts to limit post‑study work and to subject students—especially in STEM and “critical” fields—to greater scrutiny, but the provided sources do not contain an official list of academic fields reclassified as non‑professional; readers seeking confirmation should consult DHS/State Department rulemaking or the Immigration Policy Tracking Project for any subsequent formal announcements ^{[2] [7] [3]}.