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 credible evidence exists regarding allegations of Ashley Biden being molested?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows an alleged diary that at times references sexualized experiences and the line “Was I molested. I think so.” has circulated in media and online; Project Veritas and other outlets paid for or obtained a document many outlets say likely belonged to Ashley Biden, and prosecutors tried and convicted people for stealing and selling it (see evidence that Project Veritas paid $40,000 and that Ashley Biden wrote about the diary being viewable) [1]. Independent news fact-checkers and court-related coverage emphasize that the FBI and court filings did not publicly verify specific molestation allegations against Joe Biden, and major news organizations have reported no corroborated criminal findings tied to those claims [2] [1] [3].
1. What the alleged diary contains and who obtained it
A copy of an alleged Ashley Biden diary was published by outlets such as National File in 2020 and later circulated more widely; reporting and court testimony indicate Project Veritas paid roughly $40,000 for the alleged diary and that two people came into possession of it after one moved into an apartment previously occupied by Ashley Biden [1]. Snippets from the diary that have been reported include highly personal lines about being “hyper-sexualized” and the queried line “Was I molested. I think so.” [1].
2. Authentication and evidentiary limits
Fact-checkers and reporting have treated two separate questions differently: whether a diary existed and whether the published pages were authentic and attributable to Ashley Biden. The Associated Press and fact-checkers documented possession and sale of a journal and court proceedings tied to theft/sale, establishing strong evidence a diary existed, while earlier fact checks said the contents published online had not been independently authenticated; Snopes later updated its rating after Ashley Biden’s court letter acknowledging her journal had been viewed online, but independent confirmation of specific allegations’ factual accuracy (e.g., criminal conduct) is not established in those reports [1] [2].
3. Legal and investigative posture cited in reporting
PolitiFact noted that an FBI announcement about a plea deal in the theft/sale case did not confirm the diary’s specific contents nor name Ashley Biden; social posts that treated the FBI statement as verification of molestation claims mischaracterized the agency’s public statements [2]. IMDb and other pieces referenced an FBI investigation into the woman who sold the diary, but available reporting in these sources focuses on the theft and distribution rather than independent law-enforcement confirmation of alleged abuse described in the diary [4] [2].
4. How mainstream news organizations and fact-checkers have framed the story
Major outlets and fact-checkers have emphasized limits on verification: they documented the chain of possession, the sale, and court actions against those who stole or sold the diary, while noting the difference between a document’s existence and legally proven factual allegations contained within it. The AP and other legacy outlets have also noted that broader investigations into President Biden have not uncovered corroborated patterns of sexual assault beyond other separate allegations that have been investigated and disputed [1] [3].
5. Competing narratives and political context
Right-leaning outlets and aggregators have amplified diary excerpts and headlined the possibility of abuse, while fact-checkers and center-left outlets stressed missing independent authentication of specific claims before treating them as proven. National File initially published the diary excerpts [5], conservative outlets and Project Veritas played roles in acquiring and promoting the material [1], and other reporting calls attention to how partisan actors can weaponize leaked personal documents; readers should note these competing agendas when weighing sources [1] [5].
6. What is and isn’t supported by the available reporting
Supported in these sources: a journal allegedly written by Ashley Biden was taken, sold, and in some form examined by media and Project Veritas; court documents and testimony tie people to theft/sale and to payment for the material [1]. Not found or corroborated in the provided reporting: independent forensic or law-enforcement confirmation in public records that Joe Biden committed criminal sexual abuse as described in the diary; the FBI public statements cited by social posts did not verify the diary’s sexual allegations [2] [1].
7. How to evaluate remaining uncertainty
Given the mixture of possession evidence, admissions that a journal existed, and the lack of publicly cited law-enforcement confirmation of the diary’s substantive allegations, the claim that Ashley Biden was molested remains unproven in the sources you provided. Readers should weigh the chain-of-custody and motives of parties who sold or publicized the diary (Project Veritas and partisan outlets), the limited public forensic authentication reported, and the distinction between a person’s private questioning within a journal (“Was I molested. I think so.”) and a verified legal finding [1] [5].
If you want, I can now locate and summarize named court filings, Snopes’ full update, and AP/Times/Washington Post reporting that these sources reference to further refine which factual claims have been publicly verified and which remain disputed.