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.
How has the Biden family responded to the diary allegations and what statements have they issued?
Executive summary
The Biden family’s public response to the diary matter has centered on treating the journal as stolen private property and seeking legal accountability; Ashley Biden herself wrote to a federal judge confirming the journal was hers and expressing that its theft caused lasting harm (Snopes, New York Times reporting cited) [1] [2]. Prosecutors pursued and secured guilty pleas and sentences against people who stole and sold the items — actions the U.S. attorney framed as theft for political gain (BBC; The Guardian; Newsweek) [3] [4] [5].
1. Ashley Biden’s direct statement to the court: victim, not political actor
Ashley Biden told a federal judge in an April letter that her personal journal was stolen and publicly viewed, and she said she will “forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online,” language Snopes and other outlets cite when confirming the diary’s provenance in court filings [1] [2] [6]. That court letter is the clearest public statement from a Biden family member about the diary: it treats the incident as a privacy violation and a crime, not as a political expose [1] [2].
2. Family and prosecutors framed the episode as criminal theft exploited for politics
Federal prosecutors described the conduct as stealing “personal property from an immediate family member of a candidate for national political office,” and in sentencing memos they argued the theft and sale were motivated by money and politics — language highlighted in coverage by the BBC and The Guardian [3] [4]. Newsweek and AP-linked reporting noted guilty pleas by two Florida residents who admitted conspiring to transport stolen property across state lines, reinforcing the legal narrative rather than a public-relations rebuttal from the Bidens [5] [3].
3. What the Bidens did not do — limited public counterclaims in available reporting
Available sources do not show a broad public campaign by Joe Biden’s office to litigate the diary’s contents on the record; instead the emphasis in reporting is on criminal prosecution and Ashley Biden’s private court letter [1] [2] [5]. PolitiFact and other fact-checkers caution that the FBI’s involvement and plea deals did not corroborate every alleged sensational detail of the diary’s contents — they focus on provenance and theft rather than verifying each personal claim inside the journal [7].
4. How outlets and fact-checkers describe the family’s stance on authenticity
Snopes updated its earlier “unproven” rating after publishing Ashley Biden’s court letter, indicating that she acknowledged the journal’s authenticity in that legal filing; outlets including Newsweek and Yahoo referenced that shift toward treating the diary as belonging to Ashley Biden [6] [5] [2]. Fact-checkers like PolitiFact, however, note the FBI did not confirm specific salacious contents, stressing a distinction between confirming ownership/theft and substantiating all entries in the diary [7].
5. Legal remedies and sentencing as de facto family response
Rather than a stream of public pronouncements, the family’s response — as presented in reporting — relied on the criminal-justice process: suspects pleaded guilty, and one defendant was sentenced to a short term and home confinement; prosecutors framed those outcomes as vindication of the position that the diary was stolen and exploited for political purposes [3] [4] [5].
6. Competing narratives and media framing
Conservative outlets and political opponents seized on leaked pages and alleged content in 2020 and afterward; Project Veritas figures in reporting as a buyer or intermediary for the materials [1] [5]. Mainstream reporting and fact-checkers emphasized chain-of-custody and legal findings over content verification, while some conservative commentators treated the FBI probe and sales as confirmatory — a disagreement reflected across sources [7] [1] [5].
7. Limitations in available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources do not present a comprehensive, on-the-record public statement from Joe Biden or a sustained family media campaign addressing each diary allegation; most reporting concentrates on Ashley Biden’s court letter, criminal charges, and the role of Project Veritas or other intermediaries [1] [5] [8]. The FBI’s public statements, per PolitiFact, did not verify diary contents, and many outlets distinguish between ownership/ theft and corroboration of personal claims inside the journal [7].
Bottom line: the Biden family’s recorded public response has been legal and private-focused — Ashley Biden’s court letter confirming ownership and expressing harm, and prosecutors’ statements and prosecutions that treat the matter as theft exploited for political gain — while independent fact-checkers urge caution in treating every diary entry as independently verified [1] [2] [3] [7] [5].