Proposal to Cap Graduate Loans Draws Fire from Nurses and Health‑Care Groups

A proposed change by the Education Department would tighten federal student loan access for many graduate students by narrowing which degrees qualify as "professional" programs. The move—part of changes tied to legislation known colloquially as the "Big Beautiful Bill"—has sparked opposition from a coalition of nursing and other health‑care organizations, which warn the rule could make advanced health‑care training harder to afford and worsen workforce shortages.

Under the draft regulation, programs explicitly classified as professional would include pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry and theology. Degrees that would be excluded from that list include nursing, physical therapy, dental hygiene, occupational therapy and social work, as well as many non‑health fields such as architecture, education and accounting.

The policy would replace the prior practice—under which many graduate students could borrow up to the cost of attendance—with a two‑tier set of loan caps. Students in programs deemed "professional" could borrow up to $50,000 per year and as much as $200,000 total. Students in other graduate programs would be limited to $20,500 per year and a $100,000 lifetime federal loan cap.

Education Department officials say the change is intended to rein in rising tuition by pressuring high‑cost institutions to lower prices. To determine which degrees qualify as professional programs, the department is relying on examples listed in a 1965 student financial aid law; unlike that statute, the proposed regulation would treat the enumerated list as exhaustive.

The department has said the proposal is not final and that, if implemented, the new caps could take effect next July. It also maintains that most nursing students would not be affected: department data reportedly show that about 95% of nursing students are enrolled in programs that would remain outside the new caps, and that most programs cost less than the proposed $100,000 lifetime limit. Current graduate students would be grandfathered under existing borrowing limits.

Health‑care groups disagree with the department's assessment. A broad coalition has urged the department to classify post‑bachelor’s programs required for licensure or certification—such as many nursing and allied‑health degrees—as professional programs. They argue the rule would disproportionately hit fields that are both high‑demand and largely staffed by women; a 2019 U.S. Census Bureau report found women comprised about three‑quarters of full‑time, year‑round health‑care workers and an even greater share of roles like dental and medical assistants.

“It’s just a smack in the face,” said Susan Pratt, a nurse and president of a nurses’ union in Toledo, Ohio. Pratt said restricting loan access could discourage future nurses and undermine ongoing efforts to build the workforce.

Opponents warn the caps could force prospective graduate students toward more expensive private loans, deter people from pursuing advanced credentials needed for safe patient care and exacerbate existing shortages in nursing and other frontline health jobs. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing warned the rule could have a "devastating" impact on an already strained nursing workforce if finalized.

As the rulemaking process continues, stakeholders on all sides are submitting comments and urging the Education Department to clarify how programs were selected, to publish the data behind its conclusions, and to consider broader definitions of professional programs that reflect modern licensure pathways.