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 specific claims did Project Veritas make about Ashley Biden's diary?
Executive summary
Project Veritas repeatedly told courts, the press and its supporters that it acquired Ashley Biden’s diary from third parties who said it had been “abandoned” and that the organization believed it was “legally obtained” — while also saying it could not independently confirm the diary’s authenticity [1] [2]. Court filings and reporting show Project Veritas paid about $40,000 for material tied to the diary, withheld publication before the 2020 election, and later faced DOJ scrutiny that led to searches of its associates’ homes [3] [4].
1. Project Veritas’ central claim: the diary was “legally obtained” or abandoned
Project Veritas’ public posture, repeated in a November 2021 letter and media interviews, was that the diary had been provided by two people who told Project Veritas they found the documents after the former occupant “abandoned” them; Project Veritas’ lawyers argued the group believed the diary had been “legally obtained” and said the organization had “no involvement” in how the two people acquired it [1] [5].
2. Payment and chain-of-custody acknowledgements
Court testimony and press reporting indicate Project Veritas paid roughly $40,000 in the chain that led to its possession of the diary or related material, and prosecutors say two Florida residents later pleaded guilty to transporting stolen property in connection with selling that material [3] [6]. Project Veritas’ founder James O’Keefe told reporters the group could not confirm the diary’s provenance at the time [6].
3. Project Veritas’ claim that it withheld publication because of verification concerns
Project Veritas has said it did not publish the diary’s contents because it could not confirm authenticity; reporting and Project Veritas’ statements maintain the group declined to publish after checking and subsequently turned materials over to law enforcement [1] [7]. Independent outlets, however, report a copy surfaced on The National File in late 2020 separate from Project Veritas’ public timeline [8] [9].
4. Project Veritas’ assertions about government action and surveillance
Project Veritas has publicly claimed the Department of Justice “spied” on its employees’ emails and improperly used gag orders in the diary probe; those claims rest on Project Veritas’ reading of court filings and Microsoft records the group says it obtained [10] [7]. Civil-liberties groups and media outlets reported the organization framed the investigation as a press-freedom case even as prosecutors pursued documents in the probe [11] [12].
5. Legal pushback and judicial findings that complicate PV’s narrative
Federal judges overseeing related matters have rejected broad First Amendment shields asserted by Project Veritas to block prosecutors from seeing seized materials; a Manhattan judge ruled that many documents tied to the investigation could be turned over to prosecutors, undercutting Project Veritas’ claim that reporter privilege or source protection should bar scrutiny [4] [12] [13].
6. How Project Veritas’ public claims differ from prosecutors’ and press accounts
Prosecutors and multiple news outlets report that investigators treat the diary as stolen property and that two sellers pleaded guilty in its sale, while Project Veritas has emphasized its belief that it was legally obtained and that it had declined to publish without verification [6] [1] [2]. Reporting also notes Project Veritas at times sought to use legal arguments portraying the probe as a threat to press freedom [11] [7].
7. What sources do not say or have not established
Available sources do not mention Project Veritas producing public forensic proof that the diary’s contents were authenticated by independent document examiners prior to the legal actions reported, nor do these sources show Project Veritas published the diary’s full authenticated text itself [3] [1]. If you are asking whether Project Veritas definitively proved chain-of-custody in public filings, that is not found in current reporting provided here [4] [6].
8. Why this matters: competing frames and potential agendas
Project Veritas framed its disclosures to emphasize victimhood — that its reporters and methods were being criminalized and its materials lawfully obtained — a narrative helpful to its supporters who stress press freedom [7] [11]. Prosecutors and some news outlets framed the matter as an investigation into stolen property and possible complicity by third parties who sold the diary, a framing that justified subpoenas and search warrants [6] [12].
9. Bottom line for readers
Project Veritas made three linked claims: that it obtained the diary from sources who said it was abandoned and legally obtained; that it paid for material tied to the diary; and that it withheld publication because it could not verify authenticity — while also alleging government overreach in the probe. Court filings and independent reporting complicate that narrative by documenting guilty pleas by sellers, significant payments, and judicial rulings allowing prosecutors access to seized documents [1] [3] [4].
Sources: See reporting cited above, including Snopes, AP, Politico, Newsweek, The Associated Press and others summarized in the provided documents [14] [3] [6] [4] [1].