Julia Pentasrio, a Loyola University student and editor-in-chief of the Loyola Phoenix newspaper, in the university’s newsroom in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on November 11, 2025.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new Trump administration rule that limits the amount certain graduate students can borrow based on their field of study, days before the policy goes into effect.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington has frozen some federal student loan limits set by the U.S. Department of Education for the time being. The department was implementing restrictions set out in President Donald Trump’s tax and spending bill, or “The Big Beautiful Bill.”
The new regulations, scheduled to begin July 1, would impose a $20,500 annual loan cap on most graduate students, while so-called professional students would be able to borrow up to $50,000 a year. Previously, graduate students could borrow an amount equal to the cost of attending the program.
The order, issued late Wednesday, maintains the Department of Education’s definition of a “professional degree.” The Trump administration had identified 11 degrees that fit that label, including medicine, dentistry and theology.
The Department of Education is “reviewing the order and will take appropriate action,” said Ellen Keast, the agency’s higher education spokeswoman.
Plaintiffs challenging the policy, including the American Nurses Association, argued that the rule “arbitrarily and capriciously” defines professional degrees, resulting in “serious consequences” for fields that are excluded from the category, such as nursing and education.
“We are pleased to be able to serve our communities by using the Direct Loan Program to pursue degrees in nursing, public health, education, and marriage and family therapy,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a liberal group that represented the plaintiffs.
Howell set aside the Trump administration’s definition of a professional degree, but stopped short of blocking the government from enforcing caps on entry-level loans. He added that the plaintiffs’ “fundamental dissatisfaction” with the termination of the uncapped borrowings could not be resolved.
