Which federal nursing education funding changes did the Trump administration propose or implement between 2017 and 2020?

1. What reporters are focusing on: a redefinition, not a 2017–2020 funding spree

Most pieces in the provided set describe the Department of Education’s decision to redefine which graduate programs count as “professional degrees” under rules associated with the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” and describe effects such as eliminating Grad PLUS loans for excluded programs and lowering aggregate borrowing caps for nursing students—coverage that is about a rule change rather than a menu of discrete funding increases or program starts between 2017 and 2020 ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. The concrete fiscal impacts reported: Grad PLUS and aggregate caps

Several outlets report that excluded programs (including nursing) would lose access to Grad PLUS graduate loans and face a lower aggregate borrowing cap—reporters cite a $100,000 cap for excluded programs versus $200,000 for programs the administration continues to call “professional,” a change that would directly reduce the amount many graduate nursing students could borrow under federal programs ^{[2] [6] [7]}.

3. Who objected and why: nursing organizations warn of workforce consequences

National nursing groups such as the American Nurses Association and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing publicly criticized the Education Department’s move, warning that limiting access to graduate funding threatens the pipeline for advanced-practice nurses, educators and leaders and could worsen shortages—these reactions are quoted repeatedly in reporting ^{[7] [3] [8]}.

4. Department of Education pushback and disputes over accuracy

The Education Department’s spokesperson pushed back in at least one account, calling some reporting “fake news,” and Snopes and other outlets note that the administration’s approach evolved and that some circulated lists of excluded fields may have been outdated or mischaracterized—reporting therefore contains both the department’s defenses and third-party fact-checking that questions the initial social-media claims ^{[9] [4]}.

5. Reporting limitations and timeline gaps

None of the supplied sources document a suite of funding changes specifically implemented from 2017–2020; instead, the materials center on a later reclassification and its projected loan impacts. Available sources do not mention discrete federal grants, program authorizations, or funding increases for nursing education enacted during 2017–2020 in the documents you provided ^{[4] [5]}. That gap means claims about 2017–2020 actions cannot be confirmed from this set.

6. Alternative interpretations and political context

Some outlets frame the change as budget discipline and “commonsense limits” on borrowing, echoing Department of Education language about simplifying repayment and placing “guardrails,” while nursing advocates frame it as a policy that will cut critical access to graduate training and exacerbate shortages—readers should note this clash between fiscal framing from the department and workforce-framing from nursing groups ^{[3] [7]}.

7. How to read contested claims going forward

Fact-checkers (e.g., Snopes) caution that early circulated lists and social posts may have been outdated or overstated, and that the administration’s technical method relied on program classification codes (CIP) and statutory examples—so determine whether a follow-up piece relies on the department’s final regulatory text, fact-checking, or only early media reports before accepting specific lists of excluded degrees ^[4].

8. Bottom line for your original question

Using only the provided reporting, the clearest federal action discussed is a Department of Education redefinition tied to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that excluded nursing from “professional degree” status and would remove Grad PLUS eligibility and reduce aggregate borrowing for affected students ^{[1] [2]}. Available sources do not document separate, named federal nursing-education funding changes implemented between 2017 and 2020; those specific years are not covered in the supplied articles ^{[4] [5]}.