Which federal agency reclassified certain degrees as non-professional under the Trump administration?
Executive summary
The U.S. Department of Education — under the Trump administration’s implementation of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA) — issued a proposed rule limiting which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees” for higher federal loan caps; critics say that effectively excludes fields such as nursing, teaching, social work and accounting from the professional category [1] [2] [3]. The Department says it is using a historical, statutory definition tied to a 1965 law and has not “reclassified” degrees in a final rule; the proposal remains subject to rulemaking and public comment [4] [5].
1. What happened — a federal agency took the lead
The agency driving the change is the U.S. Department of Education. The Department published a proposed regulatory definition that narrows which post‑baccalaureate programs count as “professional degrees” for the purpose of new graduate loan caps created by the OBBBA, and it is implementing those loan‑limit provisions [1] [2].
2. What the change means in practice
Under the new law and the Department’s proposed interpretation, graduate students in programs not identified as “professional” would face lower federal borrowing caps (for example, lower annual and lifetime limits) and loss of former Grad PLUS eligibility; programs the Department lists as professional get a higher cap [6] [7] [5].
3. Who is being affected and who is objecting
Nursing organizations, educators and several trade outlets reported that nursing, social work, teaching, accounting and other fields are excluded from the Department’s narrow list and have objected, warning the move will limit students’ access to graduate financing and could affect workforce pipelines [8] [1] [9].
4. Agency pushback and how the Department frames the rule
The Department of Education published a “Myth vs. Fact” fact sheet asserting that some media and advocates have been “fear mongering” and that the agency is using a longstanding statutory approach to define professional degrees; the Department emphasizes the change pertains to loan limits under the Act and does not affect undergraduate credentials [4].
5. Dispute over semantics: “reclassified” vs. “proposed definition”
Fact‑checking outlets and the Department note an important distinction: reporting that degrees were “reclassified” can overstate the situation. Snopes says the Department has proposed excluding many programs from the professional‑degree loan category but had not finalized a reclassification when that fact check was written; the rulemaking process and public comment remain in play [5].
6. The legal and historical hooks cited by the Department
Officials point back to a 1965 statutory framework for what counts as a “professional degree” and argue that the Department’s proposed list merely aligns with that historical precedent while implementing the OBBBA’s new loan structure [5] [4].
7. Media and advocacy framing — competing narratives
News outlets and advocacy groups frame the change differently: some describe it as a technical implementation of loan caps that targets only a narrow list of historically defined professions (echoed by the Department and some commentators) [4] [7], while others present it as an effective downgrading of many graduate programs — particularly those dominated by women or essential workers — with potentially severe access consequences [2] [3] [10].
8. What remains unresolved and what to watch
Available sources show the Department expected to issue final rules in 2026 and that the proposal had prompted broad comment and organized lobbying from affected fields; whether the final rule will change the list or how loan caps are applied remains open [5] [2]. Sources do not specify the final text of any rule beyond the proposal and related agency statements — final outcomes are not found in current reporting [5] [4].
9. Why the distinction matters politically and practically
Labeling a program “professional” in this context directly affects federal loan eligibility and borrowing limits, which in turn affects students’ ability to finance training for licensure or advanced practice. Critics argue the choice reflects policy priorities about whom federal loans should subsidize; the Department argues it is curbing excessive graduate‑school borrowing and returning to statutory definitions [6] [4].
10. Bottom line for readers
The Department of Education is the federal agency at the center of this change; it issued a proposed regulatory definition that would limit which graduate programs qualify for the higher “professional” loan caps under the Trump administration’s OBBBA, provoking sharp disagreement between the agency (which cites historical statutory language and the new law) and many professional and advocacy groups (which warn of concrete harms to workforce pipelines) [1] [4] [2].