Were any federal agencies instructed by Trump officials to reclassify professions as unprofessional, and which agencies issued those directives?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal reporting shows the Trump administration changed which graduate programs the U.S. Department of Education would treat as eligible for the higher “professional” loan caps created by the One Big Beautiful Bill, proposing to limit that label to roughly 10–11 fields and exclude nursing, teaching, social work, architecture and other programs [1] [2]. Separately, administration directives revived a workforce reclassification called “Schedule F” (or similar “Schedule Policy/Career”) that instructs agencies to identify policy-related positions for at‑will status — a different kind of reclassification that targets federal jobs, not academic professions [3] [4] [5].
1. Two different reclassifications are being discussed — don’t conflate them
Reporting describes two distinct moves: one is the Department of Education’s narrowing of the federal definition of “professional degree” for student‑loan eligibility under the One Big Beautiful Bill; the other is an executive‑branch effort to reclassify federal employees into an at‑will category (often called Schedule F or Schedule Policy/Career) so agencies can remove policy‑oriented staff more easily [1] [3]. Sources make clear these are separate policies with different targets and consequences [1] [4].
2. Which federal agency changed which professions? — Department of Education redefined “professional” degrees
News outlets and higher‑education coverage report that the U.S. Department of Education wrote a proposed regulation that narrows which graduate programs count as “professional” for the higher loan caps, limiting the category to fields such as medicine, law, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry and theology [2] [6]. Multiple outlets say nursing, teaching, social work, architecture, accounting, physical therapy, physician assistant programs and audiology were excluded from the department’s list [7] [8] [6].
3. Who instructed the Department of Education to act? — legislative law plus administration implementation
The change in loan caps and the need to define “professional” stem from the One Big Beautiful Bill passed by Congress and signed by the president; the Department of Education then interpreted and proposed a regulatory list for which programs qualify for the higher caps [1] [9]. Business Insider notes the department said the redefinition relates only to loan limits and is “not a value judgement” about the importance of programs; other outlets emphasize the department’s narrower interpretation of an older statutory definition [1] [10].
4. Were other federal agencies told to call professions “unprofessional”? — available sources do not mention that
None of the provided reporting shows other federal agencies (for example HHS, DOL, VA) were instructed to label professions “unprofessional.” Coverage centers on the Department of Education’s rulemaking about which graduate programs count for higher loan caps [1] [6]. If you are asking about federal licensing, professional recognition outside loan programs, or agency‑level denouncements of professions, available sources do not mention those actions.
5. The Schedule F/workforce reclassification is a separate, politically charged directive
A revived Schedule F (or “Schedule Policy/Career”) effort instructs agencies to identify policy‑influencing positions for reclassification to at‑will status, potentially affecting tens of thousands of federal employees; this is about personnel status and firing/appeal rights, not whether a civilian occupation is a “professional degree” for loan rules [3] [4] [5]. State attorneys general, unions and workforce experts have opposed it, arguing it would politicize the civil service [11] [5].
6. Stakes and competing perspectives — finance control vs. workforce and equity concerns
Supporters say capping borrowing and narrowing who gets higher loan limits will restrain tuition growth and taxpayer exposure; the Education Department framed its move as following an existing statutory definition and tying higher caps to a limited set of professional programs [1] [9]. Critics — nursing groups, educators, unions and many news outlets — say excluding high‑need fields like nursing and teaching will worsen shortages, restrict access for lower‑income students and effectively devalue those careers in federal policy terms [2] [6] [8].
7. What’s settled and what remains unsettled
Multiple outlets report the Department of Education’s proposal and the list of included/excluded degrees; fact‑checking sites note at least some changes were proposed and subject to rulemaking and legal challenge [10] [6]. The implementation timeline, lawsuits, and whether other agencies will adopt similar professional‑status definitions are still unfolding in the record provided [10] [5].
8. Takeaway for readers
If your concern is whether Trump officials ordered federal agencies to reclassify entire occupations as “unprofessional,” current reporting shows the Department of Education narrowed which graduate programs count as “professional” for higher federal loan caps (affecting fields such as nursing and education) and separately the administration pushed to reclassify many federal employees into an at‑will Schedule F category; the two actions are related politically but operate in different policy domains and through different agencies [1] [3] [4].