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.
Joe Biden's public response to diary allegations
Executive Summary
Joe Biden’s personal public response to the Ashley Biden diary allegations is not documented in the provided source set; the sources center on the diary’s authenticity, Ashley Biden’s court filings, and the theft and sale of the diary rather than a statement from President Biden himself. The verified materials show Ashley Biden acknowledged the diary’s authenticity and described painful entries including references to showers with her father, while reporting also details the theft, involvement of Project Veritas, and the sentencing of the thief, Aimee Harris [1] [2] [3] [4]. The record in these sources thus establishes the diary’s existence and chain of events around its publication and criminal prosecution, but it leaves the question of Joe Biden’s publicly recorded response unanswered in the documents provided [5] [6].
1. What the allegations and key claims actually are — clarity from the record
The core factual claim in the materials is that Ashley Biden wrote diary entries that included descriptions of bathing or showering with her father as a child, characterizing those memories as “probably not appropriate,” and that Ashley herself authenticated those entries in court filings and a letter to a judge describing harm from the diary’s theft and publication [7] [2]. The sources consistently report the diary’s contents were made public after being stolen and offered for sale, and legal action followed: Aimee Harris pleaded guilty to stealing and selling the diary and was sentenced, and Ashley Biden urged the court for a sentence reflecting the harm she suffered [8] [4]. These are the central, documented claims established in the set of articles and filings provided [1] [5].
2. Which sources verify the diary and what they say about authenticity
Multiple fact-checkers and court documents cited in the material conclude the diary entries are authentic as authenticated by Ashley Biden’s own filings, including a letter to a New York judge and a court filing in which she acknowledged the diary and its contents [2] [3]. Snopes and other outlets reported verification efforts and corroboration of specific entries, noting Ashley’s admission that the entries were hers and that some passages described showering with her father and the trauma she experienced, which informed her request for judicial protection and redress after the theft [7] [6]. These confirmations focus on provenance and harm, rather than further forensic analysis beyond Ashley’s authentication [1] [7].
3. How the diary reached the public and who was involved — theft, sale, and Project Veritas
The reporting traces a chain from theft to an attempted sale and links to conservative operatives and Project Veritas in efforts to shop or publicize the diary during the 2020 election period; Project Veritas’s role is a recurring element in the accounts, and the organization’s methods and political alignment are discussed in the background reporting [4] [9]. Aimee Harris pleaded guilty to stealing and selling the diary and received a sentence tied to those crimes; Ashley Biden’s victim-impact letter and public commentary framed the theft as deeply harming her privacy and wellbeing, which prosecutors used to contextualize the offense [8] [4]. The sources emphasize the politically charged environment around the diary’s dissemination and note the active involvement of parties seeking to monetize or weaponize the material [9].
4. The conspicuous absence of a public statement from Joe Biden in these records
Across the provided items, there is no quoted or paraphrased public statement by Joe Biden addressing the diary allegations; journalists contacted the White House and representatives for comment but did not include a response from the President in the reporting summarized here [5] [6]. Coverage centers on Ashley Biden’s own filings and reactions, the criminal case against the thief, and the role of third parties in publishing the entries, leaving an evidentiary gap on whether or when Joe Biden publicly addressed these specific allegations in the contemporaneous record supplied [1] [3]. That absence is itself a verifiable finding from this set of documents and should temper any claims that President Biden publicly responded as of the dates reflected in the materials [6].
5. Why this record matters and what’s missing for a full public-accounting
The documented materials establish authenticity, victim impact, and criminal accountability for the theft and publication of Ashley Biden’s diary, but they omit a presidential response, which matters for public understanding and political accountability [2] [8]. The sources provided do not include statements from Joe Biden, White House briefings specifically on the diary, or later clarifying remarks that might change interpretation; they also do not present independent forensic details beyond Ashley’s authentication, leaving open questions about chain-of-custody and the motives of parties who disseminated the diary [7] [4]. Readers should treat the absence of a Biden statement in this corpus as a factual gap and seek contemporaneous White House records or verified presidential communications for a complete account.