Has Ashley Biden given interviews or testimony explaining her diary's meaning?
Executive summary
Ashley Biden has not given a series of on‑the‑record media interviews in which she publicly walked through the contents and meaning of the pages published online; instead the public record shows she provided written statements and court filings that confirm the diary’s existence, describe the personal harm from its theft and warn that her private writings have been distorted when used politically [1] [2] [3].
1. What the record actually contains: written testimony and a letter, not interview-driven exegesis
The key publicly available materials from Ashley Biden are formal, written submissions: prosecutors and news outlets cite a letter she sent to a judge as part of the criminal case against the people who stole and sold her diary, and Snopes and other outlets report that published court documents — including written testimony from Ashley Biden — establish the diary’s reality [2] [1] [4]. That letter, unsealed at the New York Times’ request and reported by NBC Philadelphia and CNBC, pleaded for accountability and detailed the emotional harm of the theft, stating she would “forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online” [2] [3]. Those are formal legal and testimonial materials, not the kind of sit‑down interviews in which a subject narrates the meaning of private diary entries in the media.
2. What Ashley Biden said about how her writings were used and interpreted
In the court filing and related reporting, Ashley Biden explicitly warned that her “innermost thoughts” and stream‑of‑consciousness writings had been “constantly distorted and manipulated,” accusing those who published the material of peddling “grotesque lies” and defaming her and her family [5]. Snopes’ reassessment that the diary’s existence had been “confirmed” was based on Ashley Biden’s written testimony and the unsealed letter; that same documentation is the basis for multiple outlets’ statements that she had authenticated that the diary was hers in the legal record, not in televised or print interviews [1] [4].
3. Claims of audio confirmations and Project Veritas interactions — contested and imperfectly sourced
Project Veritas and allied outlets have long asserted audio and other materials purporting to show communications with Ashley Biden or her confirmation of ownership; Project Veritas itself published such claims and footage online [6]. But mainstream coverage and the court record emphasize that Project Veritas did not publish the diary and that attempts by operatives to elicit confirmation or interviews were part of the larger provenance story; prosecutors described the diary’s theft and sale to Project Veritas, and reporting notes Project Veritas’ role in attempting to verify and monetize the material rather than Ashley Biden’s voluntary public explanation of its meaning [7] [8] [3]. The public materials showing Ashley Biden’s words are courtroom filings, not voluntary media interviews conducted to interpret the diary.
4. Why Ashley Biden may have chosen written submissions over media interviews
The filings make clear Ashley Biden sought to limit further public harm: she declined to attend a sentencing and chose to channel her reaction through a judicial letter, according to reporting on the unsealed court record; her lawyers also declined to add to what she wrote [2] [3]. In that letter she framed the theft as a political act meant to “peddle grotesque lies” and sought legal remedy — a posture consistent with prioritizing privacy and legal redress rather than participating in public interviews that might amplify the very distortions she described [5] [2].
5. Limitations in the public record and competing narratives
Reporting establishes that the diary exists and that Ashley Biden’s written statements confirm both authorship and harm [1] [4]. However, the sources provided do not contain a transcript of any sit‑down interview where she methodically explains each entry’s meaning; outlets promoting the diary’s contents (and Project Veritas) promote different agendas and made efforts to verify ownership through outreach or recordings, but the authoritative public explanations from Ashley Biden remain contained in legal papers and a judge‑directed context rather than in journalistic interviews [6] [8]. If additional on‑the‑record interviews by Ashley Biden exist, they are not documented in the sources provided.