Judge blocks Trump’s rule limiting student loans for grad students

Julia Pentasuglio, a Loyola University student and editor-in-chief of The Loyola Phoenix newspaper, types on her laptop in the university’s newsroom in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on Nov. 11, 2025.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
temporary federal judge blocked A new Trump administration rule limiting how much debt certain graduate students can borrow based on their field of study comes days before the policy goes into effect.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington has frozen some of the federal student loan ceilings set by the U.S. Department of Education for now. The department was enforcing limits set in President Donald Trump’s tax and spending bill, a “big, beautiful bill.”
Under the new regulations, which were previously scheduled to begin July 1, most graduate students will be subject to a borrowing limit of $20,500 per year, while professional students can borrow up to $50,000 per year. Previously, graduate students could get loans equal to the cost of the program.
The order, issued late Wednesday, remains the Department of Education’s definition of a “vocational degree.” The Trump administration had identified 11 degrees that fit that label, including medicine, dentistry and theology.
Plaintiffs opposing the policy, including the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, argued that the rule “arbitrarily and capriciously” defines a professional degree and has “profound consequences” for fields excluded from the category, such as nursing and education.
“We are pleased that those who rely on the Direct Loan Program to contribute to their communities by seeking degrees in nursing, public health, education, and marriage and family therapy can do so,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, the liberal group that represented the plaintiffs.
While Howell scrapped the Trump administration’s definition of professional degrees, he did not go so far as to prevent the government from implementing new graduate loan caps. He added that plaintiffs would not be able to address their “primary disappointment” about the end of uncapped borrowing.



