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.
Fact check: How did the New York Post obtain Hunter Biden's laptop?
Executive Summary
The New York Post obtained material from what it called Hunter Biden’s laptop after a Delaware computer repair shop owner copied the device’s hard drive and provided that copy to intermediaries linked to Rudy Giuliani, who then delivered files to the Post in October 2020; law enforcement later took custody of the original device [1] [2] [3]. Subsequent investigations and reporting have both corroborated pieces of that chain—authentication of many emails and acknowledgement by Hunter Biden’s lawyers that the repair shop was likely the source—while also documenting disputes about provenance, handling, and political uses of the material [4] [5] [6].
1. How the laptop reportedly moved from a Delaware shop to the Post — the basic chain of custody that drove the story
Reporting establishes a clear narrative: a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop in April 2019 was never retrieved; the shop owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, made a copy of the hard drive, said he turned the original over to the FBI, and provided a copy to Robert Costello, an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, who passed materials to the New York Post in October 2020 [1] [2]. That sequence—repair shop to Giuliani associate to Post—is central to public understanding because it explains why the Post was able to publish emails and other files before prosecutors completed verification. Multiple outlets repeated or independently reported those steps, and the timeline explains the political impact of the material surfacing just weeks before the 2020 presidential election [7] [2].
2. What independent reporting and forensic checks found about authenticity and tampering
Subsequent reporting broadened the factual picture by documenting independent technical reviews and authentication efforts. Major outlets reported that substantial portions of the laptop’s content—thousands of emails—were corroborated by metadata and cryptographic traces, while a forensic review provided to prosecutors found no evidence of fabrication in the copy turned over by the repair shop [5] [6]. Those findings strengthen the claim that much of the content originated from Hunter Biden’s devices. At the same time, outlets noted limitations: questions remain about whether the specific copy handled by political operatives was altered after copying, and analysts warned that chain-of-custody weaknesses complicate absolute proof of an untampered single-source transfer [3] [4].
3. How law enforcement and prosecutors treated the device and files in follow-up investigations
Federal authorities interacted with the laptop evidence in multiple ways: the FBI took custody of the original laptop in December 2019 after being alerted by the repair shop, and federal prosecutors later referenced material from the device in court filings and testimony related to a firearms charge and broader probes [1] [4]. That official engagement turned journalistic material into evidentiary material for legal cases, creating a pathway for courts to vet authenticity and relevance. Reporting in 2024 described how agents testified about messages and photos found on the device, and prosecutors used portions of the laptop material in charging documents and witness testimony, demonstrating institutional validation beyond immediate news reporting [4] [2].
4. Disputes, political context, and why provenance questions persisted
From the start the laptop story was entangled with political aims: Giuliani and allies promoted the files as evidence of wrongdoing tied to Joe Biden, while critics argued the materials were selectively released and potentially weaponized for election influence [7]. This politicized chain of custody raised legitimate journalistic and legal concerns about handling, potential for modification, and selective publication. Independent fact-checkers and reporters called attention to the lack of a pristine chain of custody—copies passed through private hands and political operatives before public disclosure—which complicated public confidence even where forensic analysis found no tampering in the copy later examined [3] [4].
5. Bottom line — what can be stated with confidence and what remains contested
With confidence: the Post’s files originated from a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop; the shop owner made a copy and provided it to Giuliani’s lawyer, and the Post published materials in October 2020; the FBI took possession of the original device and prosecutors have used material from it in legal proceedings [1] [2] [4]. Contested or unresolved elements include the absolute provenance of every file as published (due to intermediary copying and political handling) and the extent to which selective release framed the public story for partisan effect, even as forensic work authenticated large swaths of the data [3] [6] [5]. Those distinctions explain why reporting converges on the basic chain of custody but continues to debate provenance and context.