What passages from Ashley Biden's diary have been publicly quoted or verified?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Public reporting shows that at minimum Ashley Biden herself confirmed the diary’s existence and referenced that its pages were viewable online in a letter to a judge — a fact cited by Snopes in changing its verification status [1]. Major reporting (New York Times, Newsweek) and fact-checkers document the diary’s theft, that portions were published by outlets such as The National File and Project Veritas, and that Ashley Biden has said her private writings were misinterpreted and manipulated [2] [3] [4].
1. The central, verified quotation: Ashley Biden’s court letter
The clearest, publicly verified passage attributed to Ashley Biden is a line from her April 8 court letter in which she wrote, “I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online.” Snopes cites that sentence as part of the evidence that led it to revise an earlier “Unproven” rating to “True” regarding the diary’s provenance [1]. Newsweek also reports on that same letter and quotes Biden describing how her “innermost thoughts” had been “constantly distorted and manipulated” [4].
2. Published diary pages: outlets and provenance disputes
Portions of a purported diary were published online in 2020 by right-leaning outlets; Newsweek and Snopes trace republication back to The National File and Project Veritas distributing materials they said came from a diary seized or obtained during the 2020 campaign [3] [1]. The New York Times reported on Project Veritas’ involvement in efforts to obtain and publicize the diary and on internal discussions at Project Veritas about whether to publish [2]. Reporting emphasizes that publication and distribution occurred, but the exact chain of custody and full authentication of every published page has been the subject of dispute [2] [1].
3. What fact-checkers concluded and why their stance shifted
Snopes and other fact-checkers initially described strong circumstantial evidence for ownership but stopped short of confirming every published line’s authenticity. After Ashley Biden’s court letter and related testimony, Snopes changed its assessment in May 2024, saying the letter provided authentication that supported the diary’s existence and the provenance of the materials it had evaluated [1]. Snopes’ note makes a distinction between confirming the diary itself and authenticating each photographed page published online earlier [1].
4. What Ashley Biden has said about how those passages were used
In public reporting and her letter, Ashley Biden has accused others of misinterpreting and distorting her private writings and said the theft’s apparent intent was to “peddle grotesque lies” by manipulating her stream-of-consciousness entries [4] [1]. Newsweek cites her comments that the diary’s contents were “once-private” and became subject to false accusations that defamed her and loved ones [4].
5. Major media’s role: reporting versus publication of excerpts
The New York Times documented Project Veritas’ role in acquiring the diary material and reported on internal decisions about publication; it did not present a catalogue of verified diary passages published by mainstream outlets, instead focusing on how the materials moved through political operatives and media [2]. Newsweek compiled what it called “everything we know,” including which outlets published alleged diary content and the legal outcomes for people convicted in the theft case [3].
6. Legal outcomes that inform verification claims
Court reporting tied to the theft investigation and prosecutions — including sentences and guilty pleas for people who sold or transported the stolen property — underpins assertions that the diary originated with Ashley Biden’s belongings stored in Florida in 2020 [3] [4]. Snopes cites testimony and court filings as part of the evidentiary basis for revising its verification judgment [1].
7. Limitations and open questions in current reporting
Available sources document that material purported to be from Ashley Biden’s diary was published and circulated, and they cite a direct line from her court letter confirming the diary’s online visibility [1] [4]. Sources do not provide an exhaustive, independently authenticated list of every passage that has been publicly quoted and verified line-by-line; Snopes’ shift hinges on court testimony and a court letter rather than forensic publication of each page [1]. The exact provenance of every published page and whether every excerpt circulated matches a forensic chain of custody is not comprehensively documented in the provided reporting [2] [1].
8. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Right-leaning outlets published diary material early and political actors used excerpts to attack President Biden’s family, while Ashley Biden and multiple reporters describe the publication as theft-driven and politically motivated [3] [2]. Project Veritas and some conservative platforms pushed dissemination; fact-checkers and mainstream outlets have focused on provenance and the ethical legality of publication rather than repeating all alleged passages verbatim [2] [1]. Readers should weigh the political motives of early publishers against court testimony and fact-checkers’ evolving assessments [3] [1].
Sources cited: Snopes (fact-check and archive) [1] [5], Newsweek summaries and reporting [4] [3], The New York Times reporting on Project Veritas and chain of custody [2].