Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What statements have Ashley Biden and President Joe Biden made about the diary?
Executive Summary
Ashley Biden publicly confirmed the diary’s authenticity in May 2024, saying it was part of her healing from trauma and that its publication re‑traumatized her; media and fact‑checkers later corroborated aspects of its provenance and contents. Law enforcement and commentators dispute the circumstances of its theft, publication and verification, producing competing narratives about privacy, journalistic ethics, and criminality that remain central to ongoing investigations and public debate [1] [2] [3].
1. How Ashley Biden framed the diary — a personal healing document and a trauma record
Ashley Biden told a New York judge in a written statement that the diary is authentic and that she kept it during a period she describes as efforts to heal from PTSD and sexual trauma; she said the diary contains references to sexual trauma and instances she considered inappropriate, including memories of showers with her father, and that the diary’s exposure re‑traumatized her [1]. Her statement framed the journal primarily as a private therapeutic artifact rather than a political document, and she emphasized personal harm from its public dissemination. That portrayal has guided legal arguments about victims’ privacy and the emotional impact of the diary’s publication, and has been repeatedly cited by outlets reporting on the court filings and related reactions [4].
2. What President Joe Biden and his team have said — limited public comment, focus on family privacy
Public statements from President Joe Biden and his official team about the diary have been limited and cautious, focused on defending family privacy and decrying the release as an unjust intrusion; the administration has not issued detailed rebuttals of specific diary passages in court filings or press briefings quoted in reporting [5] [4]. The Biden camp has framed the matter as a privacy and ethical concern rather than a substantive policy or political dispute, arguing that the theft and distribution of private materials are inappropriate. That posture aligns with legal strategies that emphasize the criminality of the diary’s acquisition and the harm to a private citizen, rather than litigating the veracity of personal memories in public.
3. How media outlets and fact‑checkers treated the diary — verification, caution, and evolving assessments
Independent fact checks and journalistic reports tracked the diary cautiously: after initial uncertainty, outlets and fact‑checking organizations reported verifications indicating authenticity or corroboration of provenance, and some later reports described expert confirmation and legal filings that supported Ashley Biden’s account [2] [4]. Reporting noted that the diary had been published earlier by a conservative outlet and that questions remained about whether publication followed lawful procedures, while fact‑checkers moved from “unproven” to recognizing authenticated elements as more evidence surfaced. This pattern shows how verification evolved over time and how outlets weighed legal, forensic and testimonial evidence in reaching conclusions about authenticity [3].
4. The role of Project Veritas and allegations about how the diary was obtained
Reporting and analyses indicate the diary was stolen and ultimately sold or transferred to Project Veritas, triggering scrutiny of how it left private custody and entered the hands of a conservative organization that published its contents; critics have raised ethical and legal questions about paying for or distributing stolen materials and about the motives of intermediaries who handled the diary [5] [3]. Law enforcement investigations into the theft were reported alongside debates about whether publication served public interest or merely amplified private harm. Sources emphasize the intersection of criminal investigation and partisan media strategy, noting that provenance and chain‑of‑custody questions matter both legally and for public trust in reporting [5].
5. Divergent narratives and the political implications — competing agendas at play
Coverage reveals two competing narratives: one foregrounds Ashley Biden’s trauma and victimhood, emphasizing privacy, criminality of the theft, and personal harm; the other foregrounds allegations within the diary as politically salient and part of broader efforts to influence public perception of President Biden, with some outlets and actors treating the diary as a newsworthy exposé [1] [4]. Both narratives are amplified by actors with potential agendas: privacy advocates and the Bidens’ defenders seek to limit dissemination and focus on legal remedies, while partisan publishers and critics highlight salacious content for political impact. The result is a contested public record where legal findings and investigative outcomes will further shape which narrative gains traction [1] [3].
6. What remains unresolved and what to watch next — investigations, rulings, and verification
Key unresolved items include the outcome of federal or state investigations into the diary’s theft and chain of custody, any judicial rulings about admissibility or sealing of related records, and additional forensic verifications that could settle outstanding authenticity or alteration questions; recent reporting notes ongoing probes and evolving fact‑checks but does not show final legal determinations [3] [5]. Observers should watch court filings, law‑enforcement statements, and future certified forensic reports for definitive resolution, because legal conclusions about theft and handling will affect both privacy remedies and the public’s assessment of the diary’s evidentiary weight in political discourse [4] [2].