Which Trump administration officials pushed for reclassifying professions as unprofessional?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Top-level officials at the Department of Education under President Trump — chiefly Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the agency’s reinterpreted regulatory staff implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — drove a narrower federal definition of “professional degree” that excludes nursing, education, social work and several other fields, limiting higher loan caps to a short list of programs (medicine, dentistry, law, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, chiropractic and theology) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and advocacy outlets say the change flows from the administration’s OBBBA law and the Department’s rulemaking; critics warn it will reduce Grad PLUS access and impose lower borrowing caps for many graduate students [1] [4] [5].
1. Who in the Trump administration pushed this change — and how it was implemented
The policy change traces to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act enacted in July 2025 and to the Department of Education’s subsequent rulemaking and reinterpretation of a 1965 regulatory definition of “professional degree.” Coverage points to Education Secretary Linda McMahon overseeing implementation and to DOE officials using negotiated rulemaking sessions to narrow the list of programs eligible for the higher “professional” loan caps [5] [3] [2]. Business Insider and NBC report the Department issued the specific list of programs that will receive the larger loan limits and framed the action as an administrative application of the statute’s language [1] [2].
2. What offices and processes actually did the reclassification work
Multiple outlets say this is an administrative reinterpretation, not a congressional statute change: the Department relied on 34 CFR 668.2 (a 1965 regulation) and used negotiated rulemaking (the RISE Committee sessions) to finalize who counts as a “professional” student for loan caps under OBBBA [3] [2] [6]. News reports show the Department announced a narrowed list of fields eligible for the higher $50,000 annual / $200,000 lifetime professional cap versus lower graduate caps created by the new law [1] [5].
3. Which officials are named by sources as responsible or in charge
Press coverage specifically names Education Secretary Linda McMahon as overseeing the higher-education changes included in the administration’s spending and student-loan overhaul [5]. Other sources describe the Department’s rulemaking apparatus and the RISE Committee as the vehicles that translated the law into operational definitions; individual rule-writers and negotiating committee members are not consistently named in the coverage provided [3] [2] [6]. Available sources do not mention other specific White House officials or agency staff by name beyond McMahon and the Department’s rulemaking process.
4. What degrees were removed — and what the DOE says about intent
News outlets and fact-checkers list nursing (MSN, DNP), education/teaching master’s degrees, social work, public health, physician assistant programs, physical/occupational therapy, audiology, speech-language pathology, counseling and others as excluded from the “professional” list under the DOE’s interpretation [6] [3] [2]. The Department told reporters the redefinition reflects which programs qualify for higher loan limits and “is not a value judgement about the importance of programs” [1].
5. Competing perspectives and the stakes for students and professions
Advocates and professional organizations warn the change will worsen workforce shortages and reduce graduate students’ access to loan funds, pointing to nursing shortages and the practical role graduate clinicians play in underserved areas [3] [7] [8]. The Department and proponents frame the move as aligning loan limits with statutory intent to curb excessive borrowing and apply consistent limits across programs [1]. Independent fact-checkers note the agency’s narrower reading is an administrative interpretation and, at the time of reporting, some outlets stressed proposals or rule changes had not fully completed final steps [6].
6. What’s missing and what to watch next
Reporting cites the OBBBA statute and DOE rulemaking but does not consistently name all agency staffers who drafted the rule or record internal memos explaining selection criteria; those documents or personnel statements are not in the provided reporting [3] [2]. Legal challenges, petitions from professional associations (e.g., AACN) and possible revisions through public-comment or litigation are already referenced by outlets and should be watched closely [9] [10]. Available sources do not mention outcomes of any lawsuits or final court rulings as of these reports [10] [9].
Limitations: this account draws only on the provided reporting, which mixes news coverage, advocacy pieces and fact-checks; some sources emphasize imminent final rules while Snopes stresses parts of the change had not yet completed the rulemaking process at the time of its write-up [6].