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.
Why did the Department of Education remove certain professional degrees from the 2025–2026 list?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent move to omit several fields — notably nursing, public health, social work and some allied health professions — from its working list of “professional degrees” affects who can access higher graduate borrowing limits under the administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill framework, and has prompted pushback from professional groups (examples: AACN, ANA, ASPPH) and local reporting [1] [2] [3]. The department says it did not change the underlying 1965 regulatory definition — its list reflects a narrow application of that regulation used in current rulemaking discussions, which is why some degrees that advocates consider “professional” were left off [4] [5].
1. Why the list changed: the department’s legal framing
The Department of Education is relying on an existing federal regulatory definition of “professional degree” (34 CFR 668.2) and staff working within the RISE/OBBBA process produced a non‑exhaustive list of programs that fit its narrow reading; officials and the agency’s spokespersons have emphasized that the regulation itself wasn’t rewritten — the list reflects an interpretation used for implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill and related loan‑limit changes [5] [4].
2. What the practical effect is: loan limits and borrowing categories
Under the new student‑aid structure in the OBBA, “professional” students can access higher annual and aggregate borrowing (including the new $50,000 annual cap in some formulations), while programs categorized as standard graduate degrees would be subject to lower graduate caps or shifted out of GRAD PLUS; excluding a field from the department’s professional list therefore reduces the federal borrowing available to students in those programs [1] [6].
3. Who was excluded and who remains
Reports and advocacy groups note that nursing (MSN, DNP), many public health degrees (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, and counseling degrees were omitted from the department’s working list, while medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, optometry, veterinary medicine, podiatry, theology, chiropractic and clinical psychology were retained as clear examples of professional degrees in the department’s examples [5] [6] [4].
4. Reaction from professional organizations and local workers
Nursing groups — including the American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the American Nurses Association — have publicly challenged the omission, arguing nursing meets the standard criteria (rigorous post‑baccalaureate education, licensure, and direct patient practice) and that excluding nursing will harm workforce development and access to care, especially in rural and underserved areas [1] [2]. Public‑health organizations similarly warned that excluding MPH/DrPH could shrink the pipeline for public‑health leadership [3].
5. Department’s counterpoint and regulatory history
The department and its representatives have stated that the historical regulatory definition did not explicitly list nursing, and that the agency “did not update the federal definition” to exclude nursing — in other words, the omission reflects continuity with longstanding regulatory language and a narrow contemporary interpretation rather than an explicit policy flip to target specific fields [4] [5].
6. Political and administrative context that matters
This issue is unfolding inside a broader push by the current administration to reshape the Education Department’s structure and student‑aid rules (including shifting agency functions), part of the One Big Beautiful Bill agenda; that larger context helps explain why a narrow legal reading to define eligibility for newly structured loan programs is being advanced now and why critics view the move as politically driven rather than purely technical [7] [8].
7. Unresolved questions and where reporting is sparse
Available sources document the omission and the immediate financial and workforce concerns raised, but available sources do not mention final regulatory text that will determine permanent status, nor do they provide comprehensive financial modeling of how many borrowers will be affected or how institutions will adapt; the Department of Education has indicated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is forthcoming, which would open a public comment period and could change classifications [3] [4].
8. What to watch next
Watch for the department’s formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the public‑comment docket (the timeline was described as coming in weeks), for any Congressional responses or legislative fixes, and for professional associations’ coordinated advocacy — these steps will determine whether the working list becomes binding, is expanded to re‑include fields like nursing or public health, or remains a narrow administrative interpretation [3] [4].
Limitations: this analysis uses available reporting and advocacy statements from the cited outlets; the precise final regulatory text and comprehensive impact estimates are not yet published in the sources provided, so claims about long‑term effects are contingent on forthcoming rulemaking [3] [4].