Trump administration plan to exclude nursing from professional degrees sparks outcry – CBS News

Proposed U.S. Education Policy and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A proposed regulatory change by the U.S. Department of Education, stemming from the “one big, beautiful bill” act, seeks to reclassify nursing for the purposes of federal student loans. By excluding nursing from a defined list of “professional degrees,” the policy would significantly lower the borrowing caps for students pursuing advanced nursing education. This report analyzes the proposal’s direct conflict with several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Stakeholders warn the policy could exacerbate a critical nursing shortage, create barriers to education, and deepen healthcare disparities.

Policy Details and Government Rationale

Reclassification and New Loan Structures

The proposal introduces new, stricter caps on federal student borrowing, effective July 1, 2026. The financial aid available to students will be determined by whether their field of study is classified as a “professional degree.”

• Professional Degree Programs: Students in designated fields such as medicine, dentistry, law, and pharmacy will be eligible to borrow up to $50,000 annually, with a lifetime cap of $200,000.
• Non-Professional Graduate Programs: Students in programs not on the professional list, including nursing, physical therapy, and social work, would face a significantly lower annual cap of $20,500 and a lifetime limit of $100,000.

Stated Justification

The Department of Education asserts the policy’s objective is to protect students from accumulating “insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.” The Department estimates that 95% of nursing students will not be affected by the new caps and suggests that the reform will incentivize high-cost institutions to lower tuition fees.

Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Impact on SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The proposal poses a direct threat to the achievement of SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. By creating financial disincentives for advanced nursing education, the policy could lead to several negative outcomes:

1. Exacerbation of Health Worker Shortages: Nursing advocates, including Professor Kim Litwack of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, warn the rule will decrease the number of students pursuing advanced degrees, worsening the existing national nurse shortage and undermining the health workforce.
2. Reduced Access to Healthcare: As noted by economist Olga Yakusheva, a diminished supply of graduate-level nurses will limit the availability of care in primary care settings and hospitals. This directly impacts progress toward universal health coverage.
3. Disproportionate Harm to Vulnerable Communities: Professor Patricia Pittman of George Washington University highlights that nurse practitioners are critical to filling healthcare gaps in rural communities. Financial barriers to this career path would severely impact healthcare access in these underserved areas.

Impact on SDG 4: Quality Education

The policy undermines SDG 4, which calls for inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities. The lower loan caps represent a significant financial barrier that could impede educational attainment.

• Restricted Access to Higher Education: The rule limits the ability of aspiring nurses to finance their graduate studies, contradicting the goal of ensuring equal access to affordable tertiary education.
• Devaluation of Nursing Education: The exclusion of nursing from the “professional degree” list has been described by American Nurses Association President Jennifer Mensik Kennedy as a move that “makes no sense” and by others as a “real gut punch,” potentially lowering morale and devaluing the profession’s educational standing.

Impact on SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

By potentially limiting healthcare access in specific regions, the proposal risks widening health disparities, a direct contradiction of SDG 10’s aim to reduce inequality within and among countries.

• Increased Geographic Disparities: The policy is expected to have its most severe impact on rural and medically underserved communities that rely heavily on advanced practice nurses, thereby increasing health inequality between urban and rural populations.
• Potential for Gender Inequality: Given that nursing is a predominantly female profession, policies that create barriers to career advancement and earning potential could disproportionately affect women, conflicting with broader goals of gender equality (SDG 5).

Stakeholder Objections and Conclusion

Widespread Opposition

The proposal has drawn significant criticism not only from nursing organizations but also from other excluded fields. The Council on Social Work Education and the American Academy of Audiology have issued statements expressing concern that the rule will discourage students from entering their respective professions. Nursing advocates remain hopeful that the Department of Education will amend the language before the rule is finalized, following an upcoming public comment period.

Conclusion

While the stated intention of the proposed rule is to manage student debt, its methodology threatens to undermine critical progress toward national and global Sustainable Development Goals. By creating financial obstacles to advanced nursing education, the policy could weaken the healthcare infrastructure, limit access to quality education, and exacerbate existing inequalities. A revision to include nursing among the designated professional degrees is necessary to align the policy with the fundamental objectives of ensuring public health, promoting educational equity, and reducing societal disparities.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article’s central theme is the potential worsening of the “nation’s nurse shortage” due to a proposed policy change. This directly impacts the capacity and quality of the healthcare system. A reduced number of nurses, especially those with advanced degrees who “fill critical medical care gaps in rural communities,” threatens public health and well-being.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The policy proposal creates significant financial “obstacles for students who want to pursue advanced degrees” in nursing by lowering student loan caps. This directly affects the accessibility and affordability of tertiary education for aspiring nurses, potentially limiting access to quality specialized training and education in a critical field.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article implies that the policy could exacerbate inequalities. By creating financial barriers to advanced nursing education, it may disproportionately affect students from lower-income backgrounds. Furthermore, the potential shortage of nurses is expected to harm “rural areas” and “communities with shortages of physicians” the most, widening the gap in healthcare access between different geographic and socioeconomic groups.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The nursing profession is a major component of the healthcare sector and the broader economy. The article highlights a pre-existing “shortage of nurses,” indicating a high demand for skilled labor. The proposed policy could disrupt the supply of these skilled professionals, impacting the health sector’s ability to function effectively and provide “decent work” for a sufficient number of people to meet national needs.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.c: Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce.

   The article directly addresses this target by focusing on a policy that could negatively impact the recruitment and training of the health workforce. The proposed loan cap is described as a measure that would “most likely lead to decreased students pursuing degrees in nursing,” thereby hindering the development of a sufficient nursing workforce to meet the nation’s healthcare needs.

2. Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

   The proposal to lower the borrowing cap for nursing students from a potential $200,000 lifetime limit to $100,000 directly challenges the affordability and accessibility of advanced nursing education. This creates a financial barrier that could prevent students, regardless of their capability, from pursuing these degrees, thus undermining the principle of equal access to tertiary education.

3. Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.

   The student loan cap is a fiscal policy with potential consequences for equality. As argued in the article, it could create “financial barriers” that “disincentivize nurses from seeking advanced licensing.” This could harm rural communities disproportionately, thereby running counter to the goal of adopting policies that promote greater equality in access to essential services like healthcare.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 3.c.1: Health worker density and distribution.

  This indicator is strongly implied throughout the article. The text repeatedly refers to the “nation’s nurse shortage” and warns that the policy will mean “less of these professionals joining the workforce.” It also specifically highlights the distribution issue, noting that a lack of nurses with advanced degrees will be felt most in “primary care settings,” “hospitals,” and especially in “rural communities,” which directly relates to measuring health worker density and geographic distribution.

• Number of students enrolling in advanced nursing programs.

  This is a key implied indicator for measuring the impact on SDG 4. The article explicitly states the policy would “create obstacles for students” and “most likely lead to decreased students pursuing degrees in nursing.” Tracking enrollment numbers in these specific programs would be a direct way to measure the policy’s effect on access to tertiary education for this profession.

• Disparities in healthcare access between rural and urban areas.

  This is an implied indicator for SDG 10. The article warns that the policy could “harm rural areas” because “nobody would be there if it weren’t for these nurse practitioners.” Measuring the availability of healthcare professionals and health outcomes in rural versus urban areas would serve as an indicator of whether inequalities in healthcare access are increasing or decreasing as a result of such policies.

4. SDGs, Targets and Indicators Table

Source: cbsnews.com