A viral image claims Project 2025, a collection of conservative policy recommendations published by the Heritage Foundation, includes a “Plan for Women” that would strip women of basic rights: transferring financial assets from women to male guardians, ending workplace protections for women, introducing government monitoring of women’s financial transactions, and the phasing out of access to credit, loans, and property ownership for all unmarried women.
The claims are false: Most of the policies mentioned appear nowhere in Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership document, two claims lack context, and the viral image references fake quotes and an inaccurate page number.
The text, which is broken into four sections, starts by directly quoting two lines allegedly from Project 2025. First, it identifies the policies as part of a “Financial and Social Order Framerwork.” However, the terms “financial and social order framework,” “social order framework,” “social order,” “financial order framework,” and “financial order” do not appear anywhere in the 920-page document. The post’s second quote—“to restore traditional family structures by reinforcing financial and economic policies that align with conservative values”—is also nowhere to be found.
Alongside these fake quotes, the post also cites Page 432 as a source for the image’s information. However, Page 432 of the document is part of a chapter covering the Environmental Protection Agency and primarily discusses how to streamline waste management through policy changes at the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Nothing on Page 432 reflects any of the policies mentioned in the image.
But what if, despite the image incorrectly citing both quotes and a page number, these policies are included elsewhere in the document? Below is an overview of the individual claims and whether they actually appear in Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership.
‘Section 1: Gender-Based Financial Governance’
This section includes three claims, that 1) “All financial accounts will be restructured to prioritize the head of household (traditionally male) as the primary account holder,” 2) “Women’s financial assets will be transferred to their legal male guardian (husband, father, or next of kin) to reinforce familial stability,” and 3) “Independent access to credit, loans, and property ownership for unmarried women will be gradually phased out to encourage traditional family roles.”
None of these policies appear in the document.
‘Section 2: Workforce Participation Regulations’
The second section of the image also includes three claims, that 1) “Workplace protections for women, such as maternity leave and pay equity laws, will be reevaluated to ensure they do not unfairly disadvantage male breadwinners,” 2) “hiring practices will be adjusted to prioritize family stability, encouraging married women to focus on domestic responsibilities,” and 3) “women’s eligibility for unemployment benefits and financial aid will be contingent on marital status and family needs.”
None of these policies appear in the document.
‘Section 3: Social Welfare and Financial Support Restrictions’
The image’s third section includes two claims, that 1) “Federal assistance programs, including childcare subsidies and food assistance, will be redesigned to encourage traditional family structures, limiting access for single mothers,” and that 2) “Reproductive healthcare funding will be significantly reduced, reinforcing the sanctity of life and discouraging non-traditional family planning.” These claims are not entirely accurate, but, unlike the prior two sections, there is some truth to them.
In the document’s chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), section author Roger Severino suggests that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should recognize marriage, family formation, and delaying sex to prevent unwanted pregnancy as priorities for reversing poverty. These goals, he argues, should be measured by states as they administer programs funded by federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grants. However, there is no discussion of redesigning assistance programs to explicitly encourage traditional family structures or to disadvantage single mothers.
Elements of Project 2025 also seek to limit particular kinds of funding for abortion. Several parts of the document encourage HHS to ensure strict compliance with the Hyde Amendment, a provision that bans federal funds being used to pay for abortions except for cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. The document also proposes prohibiting Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from receiving federal funding and calls on the government to redirect those funds toward reproductive health organizations that do not perform abortions.
‘Section 4: Financial Oversight and Enforcement’
The image’s final section includes two claims, that 1) “Government monitoring of women’s financial transactions will be expanded to ensure alignment with traditional family values,” and that 2) “Restrictions will be placed on the purchase of contraceptives, travel without spousal approval, and independent business ownership for women outside of family enterprises.”
None of these policies appear in the document.
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.
With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.