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.
What federal agency or rule under the Trump administration led to reclassification of certain professional degrees?
Executive summary
Available reporting ties reclassification of certain professional degrees and of federal workers to actions by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and broader Trump administration rulemaking and executive orders. ED negotiators proposed a new definition of “professional degree” that would narrow eligibility for certain borrowing limits and loan categories (e.g., listing 10 program types) [1] [2], while a separate Trump executive order resurrected a federal personnel reclassification known as “Schedule F” to make thousands of civil servants easier to fire [3].
1. What moved the needle: the Department of Education’s rulemaking
The Department of Education has led the concrete regulatory work to redefine “professional degree” in negotiated-rulemaking and RISE committee discussions; ED staff presented a proposed definition classifying which programs count as professional degrees for loan-limit and Parent PLUS legacy eligibility purposes [2]. Business Insider summarized the practical outcome in draft policy language that limits a higher borrowing cap for “professional degrees” to a specific list of programs — pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry and theology — a change that would reclassify some advanced programs and affect loan access [1].
2. Why the administration framed this change: debt, ROI and accreditation overhaul
The White House and ED framed these moves as part of a broader push to curb excessive student borrowing and to “reform accreditation” and hold accreditors accountable, citing poor return-on-investment statistics for many degrees (nearly 25% of bachelor’s and over 40% of master’s degrees, per White House materials) and arguing for tighter definitions to limit federal exposure [4] [5]. Those policy priorities guided ED’s negotiations over which graduate and professional programs merit special loan treatment [2].
3. Who gains and who loses: practical consequences for students and professions
Business Insider reporting highlights that capping professional-degree borrowing and narrowing the definition could limit financing options for students in programs that fall outside ED’s list — potentially pushing some to forgo advanced training or seek costlier private loans; advocates also warned mental-health career programs might be disadvantaged by a narrow professional-degree definition [1]. NASFAA coverage shows ED staff explicitly discussing which occupations (including physician-associate-like programs) would meet the proposed professional-student criteria, implying that classification decisions have real access and repayment consequences [2].
4. Parallel reclassification: Schedule F and federal employees
Separately from degree definitions, the Trump White House issued an executive order early in the administration to reinstate a personnel category called “Schedule F,” which reclassified many career civil servants as more easily removable political hires — an action reported to have reclassified thousands and intended to make them easier to fire [3]. While Schedule F concerns workforce politics rather than academic-degree taxonomy, both moves share an administration-wide theme of reclassification to change who gets special status or protections [3].
5. Political context: dismantling or relocating the Education Department’s functions
Major White House and media reporting show the Trump administration pursuing broader structural changes: executive orders, interagency agreements, and Project 2025–informed plans to move ED programs and shift responsibilities to other agencies, presented as “dismantling” or redistributing the department’s functions [6] [7] [8] [9]. Those institutional shifts create the policy environment in which ED rulemaking — including how it defines professional degrees — operates [6] [8].
6. Competing viewpoints and legal limits
Proponents argue tighter definitions and reclassification protect taxpayers and curb irresponsible borrowing and accreditor practices [4] [5]. Opponents warn of restricted student access to necessary financing and note legal and congressional constraints: critics say some program moves out of ED may lack statutory authority and require Congress [9]. Reporting does not provide a judicial resolution; available sources do not mention final litigation outcomes or definitive legal rulings tied to these specific degree-definition changes [9].
7. What reporting does and does not show — and next steps to watch
Current reporting documents ED’s proposed definition work in negotiated rulemaking and draft caps on borrowing for a limited list of programs [2] [1], and it documents the executive-branch push to reorganize the Education Department and reclassify federal personnel [6] [3]. Available sources do not mention a completed, legally binding final rule implementing the professional-degree definition nationally, nor do they report final regulations or court findings overturning these policies — those are items to watch in future ED rule releases, negotiated-rulemaking records, and litigation tracking [2] [1] [9].
Bottom line: the Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking and draft regulatory texts drove the immediate reclassification of certain professional degrees for federal student-aid purposes (as described in ED and reporting summaries) while a separate Trump executive order revived Schedule F to reclassify many federal employees; both reflect the administration’s broader push to remake higher-education and federal personnel policy [2] [1] [3] [6].