A recent proposal regarding graduate student loan limits has sparked a wave of misinformation about the Trump administration’s stance on fields like nursing and social work, raising concerns about future access to federal financial aid. The controversy stems from a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law by President Donald Trump earlier this summer. This provision establishes borrowing limits for federal loans based on whether students pursue degrees categorized as professional or graduate programs.
Under the new regulations, students in professional programs can borrow up to $50,000 annually, totaling $200,000, whereas those in graduate programs face a significantly lower limit of $20,500 per year, capping at $100,000. The responsibility to detail the terms of these distinctions was left to the Education Department and a committee of higher education experts.
Earlier this month, the Education Department and the committee proposed a definition of professional degrees that incited backlash from various industry groups and Democratic lawmakers due to the exclusion of certain professions from these higher borrowing limits. Some complaints circulating on social media contain inaccuracies, prompting the need to clarify the implications of the proposed regulations.
To determine what constitutes a professional degree, the Education Department utilized classifications defined in the original legislation, which stem from federal guidelines established in the 1970s. According to these definitions, a professional degree involves skills beyond those required for a bachelor’s degree and usually necessitates licensure. The example professions explicitly mentioned include pharmacy, law, and medicine, but the department initially restricted recognition to these ten fields despite calls for a broader interpretation.
Negotiators within the committee argued for the inclusion of nursing, but the final list expanded to recognize a total of 11 professional programs, allowing them to qualify for the $200,000 borrowing cap. Conversely, numerous other graduate programs will now face stricter borrowing limitations, raising concerns about decreasing enrollment, particularly among low-income and first-generation college students.
The government intends these distinctions to mitigate student loan debt and encourage colleges to control tuition fees. However, with the average cost of medical education nearing $300,000, there are fears that the new limits may restrict enrollment and push students toward private loans that offer fewer protections. Starting July 1, 2026, the law will also eliminate Grad Plus, a federal loan aimed at covering the full cost of graduate education.
Notably, health care professionals have voiced significant concern regarding the exclusion of graduate nursing degrees from professional status. Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, president of the American Nurses Association, highlighted the pressing need for nursing faculty and expressed that the proposed restrictions could deter prospective students from entering the field. The Education Department contends that most nursing students typically borrow below the new caps, arguing the caps may encourage program cost reductions.
Nonetheless, many graduate nursing programs exceed $100,000 in cost, and critics like Mensik Kennedy emphasize there is limited incentive for universities to lower their tuition, especially as nursing scholarships decrease and funding cuts loom in educational proposals. The American Nurses Association plans to oversee the public comment period, urging the Education Department to re-evaluate their definitions.
While current students enrolled in non-professional graduate programs are exempt from the new loan limits for a period of three years, the proposed regulations are not finalized. The Education Department must first publish the definition for public commentary, with adjustments possible based on the feedback received. Industry groups are advocating for broader inclusivity in the definition of professional degrees, including fields such as architecture, accounting, and social work, reflecting ongoing concerns about equitable access to education financing.
As the situation unfolds, the hope is that a constructive dialogue will emerge, leading to a more inclusive approach that recognizes the value of various professions while also addressing the challenges posed by rising educational costs.