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.
How did Ashley Biden address the diary allegations in public?
Executive summary
Ashley Biden publicly described the theft and publication of her diary as a painful invasion of privacy and sought punishment for those who sold it; she told a judge she would not attend a sentencing because it “would only increase my pain” and urged prison time for the thief [1]. Reporting and fact-checking outlets (Snopes, Newsweek, Politico, PBS, CNBC) document both that the diary was stolen and sold to Project Veritas and that the diary’s existence has been affirmed by Ashley’s court letter, while the contents’ wider authentication and interpretation remain contested in the public record [2] [3] [4] [5] [1].
1. How Ashley Biden described the leak in court filings — personal pain and a request for punishment
In a letter unsealed ahead of a sentencing, Ashley Biden told a federal judge the theft and online exposure of her personal journal caused ongoing pain; she wrote she would not attend the sentencing because appearing “would only increase my pain,” and she urged the judge to impose prison time on one of the people convicted for stealing and selling the diary [1]. Snopes cites that same court letter as direct confirmation that the diary belonged to Ashley Biden and as grounding for its updated fact-check assessment [2] [3].
2. The criminal case and Ashley’s role in the public record
Prosecutors say two Florida residents pleaded guilty to a scheme that sold Ashley Biden’s diary and other items to Project Veritas for tens of thousands of dollars; one defendant, Aimee Harris, was sentenced to a month in jail and home confinement after pleading guilty, and reporting describes Harris apologizing for enabling the sale [5] [4]. Coverage from PBS and Politico summarizes the prosecution’s account that Harris and an associate sold the belongings to Project Veritas for about $40,000 [6] [5].
3. What Ashley’s public statements do — authenticate existence, not every excerpt
Ashley’s court letter and public statements have been used by some fact-checkers to move from “unproven” to “true” on the question of whether a diary existed and was hers; Snopes explicitly notes Ashley’s letter as the basis for that judgment [2] [3]. That authentication addresses ownership and existence; available sources do not claim Ashley’s public comments authenticate or endorse every excerpt that circulated online, and fact-checkers and news outlets have continued to treat the contents’ wider verification as a separate question [3] [4].
4. How different outlets framed her response and the political fallout
Newsweek and other outlets framed Ashley’s public pain and the sentencing as reviving a politically charged story that conservatives used to attack President Biden, while Project Veritas and right-leaning channels have highlighted materials they claim to have acquired — creating divergent narratives about motive and impact [4] [7] [8]. Reporting notes that Project Veritas did not publish the diary in full, though other right-wing sites posted alleged pages in 2020, and that the criminal case focused on theft and sale rather than proving political allegations contained in published excerpts [5] [4] [8].
5. What fact-checkers and reporting say about specific allegations in the diary
Snopes updated its fact-check after Ashley’s letter to the court, concluding the diary’s existence is established, but it distinguishes that from verifying the authenticity of every page or excerpt circulated online; prior fact-checks and reporting emphasized “strong circumstantial evidence” before that update [2] [3]. Newsweek and other reporting underline that the diary’s contents remain controversial and that portions published by outlets like National File prompted the federal inquiry and public debate [4] [9].
6. Limits of the public record and what’s not in these sources
Available sources document Ashley Biden’s court letter, the criminal plea and sentencing of people who sold the diary, and the dispute over publication; however, the materials do not include a wholesale, independently authenticated publication of every diary page, and reporting continues to treat content verification and interpretation as contested [3] [4]. If you seek precise quotations from Ashley’s letter beyond the passages reported (for example, verbatim excerpts of disputed diary lines), those are either summarized in these sources or described indirectly, and available sources do not publish every disputed page [2] [1].
7. Takeaway — a private harm made public and an ongoing debate
Ashley Biden’s public response has been consistent in emphasizing personal injury, seeking legal accountability, and confirming the diary’s existence via court filings; at the same time, the question of which leaked passages are authentic and what they prove about wider allegations remains debated across outlets and fact-checkers, and the public record continues to treat content verification and political spin separately [1] [2] [3] [4].