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.
How did the Department of Labor and CMS classify nursing jobs under Trump compared with prior administrations?
Executive summary
The Department of Education under the Trump administration revised what counts as a “professional degree” for student‑loan rules and—according to multiple news outlets and nursing organizations—excluded nursing and several allied health fields from that list, a change that can lower borrowing caps for those students (examples: nursing excluded; graduate cap $100,000 vs. professional cap $200,000) [1] [2]. CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) actions cited in reporting concern staffing standards, payment updates and nursing‑home enforcement —but CMS documents and rules address facility staffing, payment models and resident assessment categories, not the Education Department’s “professional degree” classification [3] [4].
1. What the Education Department changed and who noticed
Reporting by multiple outlets says the Department of Education’s implementation of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” narrowed the definition of which programs count as “professional degree” programs and left nursing, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, physical therapy and audiology programs off the updated list — triggering warnings from the American Nurses Association and academic nursing leaders about loan caps and access to graduate financing [5] [6] [7]. Newsweek and other outlets described the practical effect: students in programs not classed “professional” would face lower borrowing ceilings tied to the bill [1] [2].
2. The financial mechanics reporters flagged
Coverage explains the immediate policy consequence: the bill ties lifetime federal borrowing caps to degree classification, with reporting noting a $200,000 limit for “professional” students versus a $100,000 cap for graduate students under the legislation — meaning exclusion from the professional list could reduce available federal loan funding for many nursing students [8] [1]. Nursing groups warn that reduced access to loans could discourage advanced education pathways that supply nurse practitioners and other advanced practice roles [6] [5].
3. Dispute, clarification and fact‑checking around the list
Fact‑checking outlets and some reporting noted complications and potential misinterpretations: Snopes reported that social posts and early headlines sometimes relied on shifting drafts and older lists, and the Department’s approach used Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes and historical examples, which created confusion about whether nursing had previously been formally counted or simply omitted from a narrow list tied to an older statute [9]. Newsweek’s updates to its story likewise indicate the public record and agency comments evolved as reporting continued [1].
4. How this differs from Department of Labor and CMS role
The Department of Labor (DOL) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provide occupational classifications, employment data, and wage projections for nursing professions; their standard occupational listings (SOC/O*NET) and Occupational Outlook profiles treat registered nurses and advanced practice nurses as established occupations with growth forecasts — these federal labor classifications are distinct from the Education Department’s student‑loan eligibility labeling and are not reported to have been redefined in the same way [10] [11]. CMS’s recent rulemaking and guidance focus on skilled‑nursing facility payment models, minimum staffing standards, quality reporting and MDS assessment items rather than higher‑education degree categories; CMS rules cited in the record set staffing hours per resident, PDPM code mappings and survey/penalty policies — matters that affect jobs and operations in long‑term care, not federal student‑loan degree definitions [3] [4].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Advocates for nursing education (American Nurses Association, AACN) frame the change as a funding cut that threatens workforce pipelines and patient access, arguing nursing merits professional‑degree status to preserve borrowing limits [6] [12]. Supporters of the bill or its goal to limit graduate/professional borrowing might argue for fiscal restraint or restoring older statutory definitions; however, explicit pro‑administration rationales for excluding these programs are variably reported and sometimes tied to implementing a narrow list from prior law rather than an explicit denigration of nursing as a field [9]. Snopes and other fact‑checkers point out that some viral claims overstated or misrepresented the mechanics, suggesting media attention and advocacy groups are both shaping the narrative [9].
6. What reporting does not (yet) show
Available sources do not mention the Department of Labor issuing any parallel reclassification of nursing degrees or occupations as “professional” or “non‑professional” tied to student‑loan policy changes [13] [10]. Likewise, CMS materials detail staffing rules, payment and survey protocols for nursing homes but do not reclassify academic nursing degrees; links between CMS operational rules and the Education Department’s degree definitions are not established in provided reporting [3] [14].
7. Bottom line for readers
The practical change documented in the news coverage is that the Education Department’s revised “professional degree” list under the One Big Beautiful Bill has been reported to exclude nursing and allied programs — a move that could lower eligible federal borrowing amounts for those students and concern workforce planners [5] [8]. DOL/BLS occupational classifications and CMS long‑term care rules operate in different policy channels: DOL/BLS provide job and wage data, while CMS regulates nursing‑home staffing and payments; none of the provided CMS documents recast academic degree categories [10] [3]. Readers should watch for agency clarifications and follow‑up fact‑checks because the lists, CIP‑code mechanics and implementation timing were evolving in the reporting [9] [1].