How did Joe Biden respond to sexual misconduct allegations during his 2020 campaign?
Executive summary
During the 2020 campaign Joe Biden publicly denied Tara Reade’s 1993 sexual-assault allegation as “not true” and simultaneously asked the Senate to search for any related records — a response he first delivered on MSNBC and in a formal request to Senate officials [1] [2]. Multiple outlets in 2020 reported a broader pattern of allegations about unwanted touching by several women; news organizations generally found limited corroboration of Reade’s specific assault claim while documenting a set of largely non‑assault complaints of “tactile” behavior [3] [4] [1] [5].
1. Immediate public denial and a records request
Biden publicly denied Reade’s allegation on air, saying “No, it is not true,” in his first on‑camera response, and the campaign followed by asking the Senate to locate any documents tied to the claim so they could be reviewed [1] [2]. Reuters reported that Biden asked the Secretary of the Senate to find documents after his on‑camera denial; advocates for survivors said the allegation deserved investigation [2].
2. Multiple, distinct accusations shaped the news cycle
Reporting in 2019–2020 compiled a set of complaints that differed in type and seriousness: seven women described unwanted touching or closeness, while Reade’s allegation was reported as a separate and more serious sexual‑assault claim [5] [4]. Outlets like The Cut and Business Insider cataloged those individuals’ accounts as part of a broader conversation about Biden’s conduct with women [3] [4].
3. Journalists’ vetting and divergent findings
Major newsrooms reviewed Reade’s account and interviewed contemporaries; the New York Times told readers it “found no pattern of sexual misconduct” after interviews with two dozen people who worked with Biden in the 1990s, and other outlets noted the absence of corroboration for key details [1]. Business Insider and PBS coverage emphasized what was publicly known about the allegation and the wider set of complaints [4] [6].
4. Legal and evidentiary questions remained public
Reporting noted that Reade said she had filed a complaint and later a police report, but news organizations and official record searches turned up unclear or no records corroborating a formal complaint from the time — a gap journalists highlighted while covering the story [7] [8]. Forbes and Reuters documented timelines showing attempts to obtain records and the campaign’s effort to surface any relevant documents [1] [2].
5. Political context and competing narratives
Coverage made clear this was a politically charged moment: the allegations surfaced as Biden was becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee and were compared repeatedly to accusations against Donald Trump; analysts and commentators framed reactions through partisan lenses, with some observers urging thorough investigation and others questioning motives and timing [9] [5] [10]. The Guardian and BBC later tracked Reade’s post‑2020 actions, which commentators read through geopolitical and political prisms [11] [7].
6. How Biden’s team balanced denial with institutional transparency
Biden’s public posture combined categorical denial of the assault allegation — “absolutely did not happen” — with a procedural step urging the Senate to search records, a strategy framed by some as a commitment to transparency while also asserting innocence [7] [2]. That dual approach aimed to answer both immediate political pressures and calls from advocacy groups for investigation [2].
7. What reporting did not establish and persistent limits
Available sources do not mention criminal convictions, contemporaneous investigatory files released publicly, or definitive corroboration of Reade’s sexual‑assault account; multiple outlets reported lack of corroboration for key details and the absence of clear official records from the 1990s [1] [7] [8]. Reporting did document a cluster of complaints about uncomfortable touching that were publicly recounted and differed in severity from Reade’s claim [3] [4].
8. Why the story mattered for 2020 voters
Journalists presented competing perspectives: some argued the allegations merited rigorous investigation to uphold survivors’ rights, and others argued the sparse corroboration and political timing weakened the claim’s immediate electoral impact [2] [10]. The cumulative effect in news coverage was to force voters to weigh a mix of personal testimony, journalistic vetting, and political framing ahead of the election [5] [1].
Limitations: this analysis uses the provided reporting only; assertions beyond those sources are not made here.