U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon testifies before the House Education and Workforce Committee on May 14, 2026. The hearing examined the Department of Education’s policies and priorities. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON – U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon was in a tizzy Thursday over the upcoming changes the federal student loan system This will introduce modern credit limits for professional and graduate students.
The legislation specifically aimed to set stricter loan limits for students pursuing advanced programs that do not fall under the department’s “professional” classification, such as nursing, teaching and social work.
Members on both sides of the aisle voiced their criticism during a hearing of the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee in which McMahon defended upcoming federal student loan reform as well as separate, ongoing efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the 46-year-old department.
McMahon emphasized that her department “does not make judgments about professional degrees” and instead seeks to “reduce the cost” of tuition.
The secretary cited “exorbitant” college costs and noted that “students are burdened with debt.”
Megabill deployment
The impending changes to the federal student loan system come as a result of Republicans in Congress’ tax and spending cuts bill that Trump signed into law last year. The department this month published The final regulations in accordance with the legal directive. Most provisions come into force on July 1st.
The regulations eliminate the Grad PLUS program, which allowed graduate students and working professionals to take out loans up to the full cost of attendance.
Graduate loans also have an annual cap of $20,500 and an aggregate limit of $100,000. Professional student loans have an annual limit of $50,000 and an aggregate limit of $200,000.
But the programs that fall under the department’s “professional” category – and therefore qualify for the higher credit limit – are circumscribed to pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology.
The agency also clarified this in an agency Fact sheet to the final regulations that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of a profession or field” but rather serve a “credit management function.”
“Sound deaf” message
Rep. Jahana Hayes said she was “very concerned” about the department’s “professional” student classifications and noted that these restrictions “make it difficult to fund higher education, particularly master’s degree programs, for nurses, social workers (and) teachers.”
The Connecticut Democrat criticized McMahon’s claim that the reform is about lowering the cost of college, saying, “The people who can afford it aren’t applying to these programs, the people who can afford it don’t need student loans, the people who come from communities like mine and just want to go back and serve those communities are the ones who are going to be hit the hardest, not the colleges, not the universities, not the board, not the top 1%.”
Rep. Joe Courtney, also a Connecticut Democrat, called the regulations’ exclusion of nursing from the “professional” category “one of the most insulting and tone-deaf messages to 5 million nurses across the country” imaginable.
Courtney added that the exclusion “will actually increase the cost of training urgently needed nurses,” citing a petition from the American Nurses Association That received more than 245,000 signatures and called on the department to include nursing programs in its “professional” definition.
McMahon defended her department’s “professional” classification before the panel, arguing that the agency “has examined the entire nursing profession very, very carefully” and “95% of nurses who enter programs do not exceed these limits.”
The secretary added that “78% of nurses relocating for graduate programs do not exceed or meet these caps.”
Even some Republican members of the panel, whose party supported the “big, beautiful” student loan reform bill, questioned the modern limits.
Rep. Lisa McClain, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, asked McMahon: “If there’s a possibility, or have you thought about it, can we look at opening the graduate programs for nurses to expand those caps or remove those caps, because that’s a good return on investment and we certainly need it?”
In the Republicans’ tax and spending cuts bill, “among other things, we had caps in place, but we had some exceptions and caveats… and I think this area of graduate nursing programs was perhaps just an unintended consequence that was perhaps overlooked,” the Michigan Republican said.
“And I’m here to really advocate for these programs because I think they’re extremely important.”
Legislation to reverse caps
Bipartisan efforts are underway in Congress to both address upcoming loan limits and expand the definition of “professional” student.
Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, presented a bill in December This would expand the “professional” definition to include “nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, spiritual work, social work, audiology, physician assistant, public health, business and management, accounting, architecture, secondary education and special education.”
Rep. Tim Kennedy of New York brought forth laws in December with fellow Democratic Rep. Jill Tokuda of Hawaii and Rep. Shomari Figures of Alabama, which would ensure the same annual and aggregate loan caps apply to college graduates and working professionals.
Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, presented a bill This would “restore the full borrowing limits that were restricted under the Republicans’ mega tax and spending cuts bill.”
In the upper house, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat, introduced a companion bill to Torres in March that passed more than a dozen Co-sponsors.
Meanwhile, a handful of Democratic lawmakers brought about a resolution This month aims to undo upcoming student loan regulations through the Congressional Review Act, a procedural tool that allows Congress to overturn certain actions by federal agencies.
Those lawmakers are: Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Rep. John Mannion of New York, Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Alsobrooks.
