Did the ANA take legal action or participate in lawsuits challenging Trump administration executive orders impacting nursing regulation?

1. What the rule change was and who protested

The Department of Education’s proposed regulation would limit which programs count as “professional degrees,” a change that federal officials say merely implements longstanding regulatory language but that critics say narrows eligibility for higher Grad PLUS-style borrowing for fields such as nursing, physical therapy and social work ^{[3] [2]}. Nursing organizations including the American Nurses Association publicly raised alarms, urging the Department to revise the definition to explicitly include nursing pathways and warning the exclusion could jeopardize pipeline and workforce efforts (ANA statement Nov. 10, 2025) ^{[1] [2]}.

2. ANA’s public response and advocacy — strong but administrative, not judicial

The American Nurses Association issued a formal statement expressing concern and urging engagement with nursing stakeholders to fix the proposed “professional degree” definition ^[1]. Reporting by FierceHealthcare and other outlets notes the ANA “raised alarms” and joined broader nursing coalitions in criticizing the Department of Education’s approach ^[2]. Those actions are consistent with administrative advocacy — public statements, lobbying, and requests for regulatory reconsideration — rather than litigation ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What coverage says about lawsuits or legal challenges

Across the sampled reporting (CNN, AP-linked pieces, FierceHealthcare, Newsweek, Snopes and other outlets), journalists describe coalition pushback and public outrage but do not report the ANA filing or participating in lawsuits against the administration over the rule ^{[3] [2] [4] [5]}. Snopes’ fact-checking and news stories focus on clarifying the rule’s history and effects rather than documenting litigation by the ANA ^[5]. Therefore, available sources do not mention ANA taking legal action ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. Broader coalition activity and possible next steps reported

Coverage repeatedly describes a coalition of nursing and health-care organizations “angry” at the changes and pushing the Department to explicitly include nursing in the definition; that coalition-level activism could include administrative comments during rulemaking and lobbying Congress or the agency ^{[3] [2]}. None of the articles in the set, however, reports legal filings by that coalition or by the ANA itself ^{[2] [3] [6]}.

5. Competing narratives in the reporting

The Department of Education and some administration allies characterize the move as applying an existing, longstanding regulatory definition and as a fiscal reform consistent with the One Big Beautiful Bill’s loan caps (Newsweek, Snopes summaries) ^{[4] [5]}. Nursing groups — including ANA — frame the change as an exclusion that risks the nursing education pipeline and patient care ^{[1] [2]}. Both frames appear in the coverage; the sources show disagreement over intent and impact but do not document judicial resolution of that dispute ^{[4] [2]}.

6. Limits of the available reporting and what to watch next

My review is limited to the supplied reporting: these pieces document ANA statements and coalition pushback but do not report lawsuits or ANA participation in litigation challenging the rule ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If legal action were later filed, expect it to appear in follow-up coverage or legal databases; monitor ANA press releases and court dockets for any new development beyond the administrative advocacy already reported ^[1].

If you want, I can scan additional news feeds or legal databases for any later developments beyond the set you provided.