Opposition to Proposed Rulemaking: Reimagining and Improving Student Education
Docket ID ED-2025-OPE-0944
| 📝 Proposed Rule | |
|---|---|
| General Information | |
| Full Name | Reimagining and Improving Student Education |
| Jurisdiction | 🇺🇸 Federal |
| Agency | Department of Education |
| Sub-Agency | Office of Postsecondary Education |
| Action | Proposed rule |
| Dates & Status | |
| Status | ● Open for Comment |
| Comment Period | |
| Opens | 30 January 2026 |
| Comments Due | 2 March 2026 |
| Submit Comment | Submit Here |
| Citations & References | |
| Docket | ED-2025-OPE-0944 |
| Related To | Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, Big Beautiful Bill (P.L. 119-21) |
| Website | Official Link |
| Federal Register | View Document |
| Regulations.gov | View on Regulations.gov |
Submitted to:
Office of Postsecondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave. SW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20202
Submitted via: Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov
Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RIN 1840-AD98, "Reimagining and Improving Student Education," 91 FR 4254 (January 30, 2026)
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST
We, the undersigned nursing students, healthcare professionals, and concerned citizens, submit this comment in vigorous opposition to specific provisions of the proposed regulations implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) as published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2026. While we recognize that the Department of Education faces the complex task of implementing statutory changes enacted by Congress, we believe the Department has exercised its limited discretionary authority in a manner that will cause profound and lasting damage to the nursing profession, to nursing students across the nation, and ultimately to the American healthcare system that depends critically on an adequate supply of well-educated nurses at all levels of practice.
The primary author of this comment, Michael Moates, Ed.D., LBA, CEAP, is currently enrolled in a Master of Science in Nursing – Direct Entry (MSN-DE) program at Herzing University, pursuing entry level nursing and advanced practice nursing credentials including Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (PMHNP) certification at St. Thomas University (Houston, Texas). Dr. Moates brings to this comment not only the immediate personal stake of a nursing student who will be directly affected by these proposed regulations, but also extensive professional experience in education, policy analysis, and behavioral health that informs his understanding of both the regulatory process and the healthcare workforce implications at issue. His academic credentials span multiple disciplines, and his current work includes serving as an adjunct professor while simultaneously completing his nursing education, a pathway that exemplifies the kind of career transition these regulations will make financially impossible for future students.
The additional signatories to this comment represent nursing students at various stages of their educational journeys, from those just beginning prerequisite coursework to those nearing completion of doctoral programs. We represent multiple types of nursing programs including traditional BSN programs, accelerated second-degree programs, RN-to-BSN completion programs, direct-entry master's programs, post-master's certificate programs, and Doctor of Nursing Practice programs. We attend public universities, private nonprofit institutions, and for-profit colleges. We come from diverse backgrounds including career changers who left other professions to pursue nursing, military veterans transitioning to civilian healthcare careers, parents returning to school after raising children, and traditional students who knew from an early age that nursing was their calling. What unites us is our commitment to the nursing profession and our deep concern that the proposed regulations will erect insurmountable financial barriers that will prevent future students from following the paths we have chosen.
The Department's proposed definition of "professional student" at § 685.102(b) explicitly excludes nursing degrees, including the Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), from eligibility for the higher annual loan limit of $50,000 and aggregate loan limit of $200,000 that will be available to students pursuing degrees the Department has deemed "professional." Instead, graduate nursing students will be limited to the standard graduate student limits of $20,500 annually and $100,000 in aggregate limits that are wholly inadequate to cover the actual costs of advanced nursing education and that will force prospective nursing students to either abandon their educational goals, assume crushing private loan debt at unfavorable terms, or cobble together insufficient funding in ways that compromise their ability to focus on their demanding educational programs.
This comment will demonstrate that the Department's exclusion of nursing degrees from professional status lacks legal foundation in the statutory text and regulatory definition the Department purports to apply; contradicts the factual reality of advanced nursing practice, licensure, and professional independence; applies inconsistent standards when compared to other degrees the Department has included on the professional list; ignores the catastrophic healthcare workforce implications of restricting nursing education access; fails to adequately consider the costs that will be imposed on the healthcare system and on patients; and disproportionately harms already underrepresented populations in nursing. We will further propose specific regulatory amendments that would remedy these deficiencies while remaining consistent with the Department's statutory obligations under the OBBB.
PART II: PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL CONCERN — INACCESSIBLE DOCKET
Before addressing the substance of the proposed regulations, we must raise a significant procedural concern that has impeded public access to this rulemaking and may warrant extension of the comment period.
The Federal Register notice at 91 FR 4254 directs interested parties to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, referencing Docket ID ED-2025-OPE-0944. However, as of January 30, 2026, the date of publication, the direct link to this docket[1] (Saved here: https://web.archive.org/web/20260130155658/https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2025-OPE-0944) returns an error page rather than the docket materials. The error message states: "We're sorry, an error has occurred. A general error occurred while processing your request." The page suggests that "the link may be outdated or incorrect" or that "the document or docket you are looking for was not found."
This technical failure represents more than mere inconvenience. The Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to provide meaningful opportunity for public participation in rulemaking. When the primary portal for accessing rulemaking materials and submitting comments is non-functional on the day of publication, the public's ability to participate is materially impaired. Stakeholders attempting to access the docket to review supporting materials, examine the Regulatory Impact Analysis, or begin the comment submission process are unable to do so through the designated channel.
We request that the Department take immediate action to resolve this technical issue and, if the problem persists for any significant duration, extend the comment deadline accordingly. The current 30-day comment period ending March 2, 2026, is already compressed given the complexity and significance of these regulations. Any period during which the Regulations.gov docket is inaccessible should not count against the time available for public comment.
We further request that the Department confirm, in the final rule preamble, the total duration of any accessibility issues with the Regulations.gov docket and explain what steps were taken to ensure that all timely-submitted comments were received and considered despite these technical difficulties.
PART III: BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND NURSING EDUCATION
Section A: Overview of Relevant Provisions
The OBBB, signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, made extensive changes to the federal student loan programs administered by the Department of Education. Among the most significant changes are new annual and aggregate loan limits for graduate and professional students that take effect for periods of enrollment beginning on or after July 1, 2026. The statute creates a distinction between "graduate students" and "professional students" that did not previously exist in the loan programs, with professional students eligible for substantially higher borrowing limits in recognition of the typically higher costs associated with professional degree programs.
Under the proposed regulations implementing these statutory provisions, graduate students who are not professional students will be limited to annual borrowing of $20,500 in Direct Unsubsidized Loans, with an aggregate lifetime limit of $100,000 (91 FR 4268-4269, proposed § 685.203(b)(2)(iv)(A)(1) and (e)(4)(i)). Professional students, by contrast, will be permitted to borrow up to $50,000 annually in Direct Unsubsidized Loans, with an aggregate lifetime limit of $200,000 (91 FR 4269, proposed § 685.203(b)(2)(iv)(A)(2) and (e)(5)). Additionally, the Graduate PLUS Loan program, which previously allowed graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance with no aggregate limit, is being phased out entirely for new borrowers beginning July 1, 2026 (91 FR 4267-4268, proposed § 685.200(b)(2)).
The dramatic difference between the graduate and professional loan limits, professional students can borrow two and a half times as much annually and twice as much in aggregate, makes the definition of "professional student" enormously consequential. Students in programs classified as professional will have access to federal loan funding that may cover most or all of their educational costs, while students in programs classified as merely graduate will face severe funding shortfalls that can only be addressed through private loans (if available and at whatever terms private lenders offer), personal savings, family support, or reduced enrollment and delayed completion.
The OBBB defines a professional student as "a student who is enrolled in a program of study that awards a professional degree (as that term is defined under section 668.2 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, and in effect on the date of enactment of July 4, 2025), upon completion of the program" (91 FR 4260-4261). The incorporated regulatory definition at 34 CFR 668.2 states that a professional degree is one that "signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor's degree" and notes that "professional licensure is also generally required" (91 FR 4262). The definition includes an illustrative list of ten fields: Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.), Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.), Law (L.L.B. or J.D.), Medicine (M.D.), Optometry (O.D.), Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or Pod.D.), and Theology (M.Div., or M.H.L.).
The definition also states that these examples "include but are not limited to" the listed degrees, indicating that the list is illustrative rather than exhaustive (91 FR 4263). The Department has therefore engaged in an interpretive exercise to determine which additional degree programs, beyond the ten explicitly listed, meet the operative definition of a professional degree. Through this exercise, the Department has proposed to add Clinical Psychology (Psy.D. or Ph.D.) to the list of professional degrees (91 FR 4260-4261, proposed § 685.102(b)(2)(i)). The Department has also proposed to extend professional status to all programs within the same four-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code grouping as the enumerated degrees, provided those programs meet the other criteria in the operative definition (91 FR 4263-4264).
Critically for purposes of this comment, the Department explicitly considered and rejected the inclusion of nursing degrees on the professional degree list. The Department's analysis of nursing degrees appears at 91 FR 4265-4266 of the proposed rule, where the Department concludes that "neither the MSN nor the DNP would satisfy the professional degree definition."