What unedited video evidence exists of Joe Biden interacting with children and what do fact-checkers say about each clip?
Executive summary
Multiple viral clips purporting to show President Joe Biden behaving inappropriately with children have circulated online, but independent fact‑checkers have identified original, unedited source footage in each major case and concluded the viral versions were digitally altered or taken out of context [1] [2] [3] [4]. The unedited material — C‑SPAN event recordings and videos posted by attendees (including a mother’s TikTok) — shows routine, benign interactions, while added audio and sound effects in redistributed clips produced the misleading impressions [1] [3] [5].
1. Fort Liberty whisper clip: original C‑SPAN and a mother’s TikTok show no “sexy kid” line, fact‑checkers say audio was altered
A clip that went viral appearing to capture Biden telling a child “you’re one sexy kid” originates from a June 9, 2023 event at Fort Liberty where Biden met military families; the unedited footage is archived on C‑SPAN and the mother who filmed the interaction posted an original video to TikTok, neither of which contain the lewd line attributed to the president [1] [3]. AFP, Reuters, Snopes and RTL examined the viral iterations and found the offensive audio was digitally inserted — in some cases likely via AI — while the original shows Biden leaning in to whisper an innocuous exchange and signing an executive order for military families [1] [2] [6] [7].
2. “Sniffing” sound added to a whisper in the same Fort Liberty footage, Reuters finds
A separate but related viral version added exaggerated sniffing noises to the same interaction; Reuters compared the clipped viral post to the full video and the mother’s recording and concluded the sniffing sound was grafted on later, while the original audio contains Biden saying, “let me whisper a secret … don’t tell mama what I told you,” with no loud sniffing audible [3]. Fact‑checkers flagged the edited sound as a clear manipulation designed to change viewers’ perception of otherwise ordinary physical proximity during greetings [3].
3. White House “obscenity” clip: offensive audio taken from an older unrelated recording, AP reports
A video of Biden at a “Take Your Child to Work Day” White House event was reshared with an inserted obscenity that made it seem a child shouted a crude command and Biden ignored it; AP compared the viral clip to the original event footage and determined the vulgar audio had been spliced in from a years‑old recording and was not present in the authentic file [4]. The authentic footage shows Biden thanking children and answering questions without any such interruption, and fact‑checkers labeled the viral post deceptively edited [4].
4. Still images and cropped video frames: context restored by C‑SPAN and fact‑checkers
Several circulating photos alleged to show Biden touching children inappropriately were traced back to event videos — for example, a C‑SPAN clip from October 15, 2021 — and fact‑checkers (Check Your Fact and others) showed the unedited footage reveals benign gestures like pointing at a child’s flag shirt or hugging, with some images digitally altered or cropped to amplify a misleading impression [5]. Meta’s Transparency Center and the Oversight Board have also documented cases where altered video of Biden and his granddaughter was used to remove context and distort his actions, prompting platform interventions and fact‑checker reviews [8].
5. Pattern and provenance: how the edits were detected and why fact‑checkers reached consensus
In each major episode, fact‑checkers relied on locating original uploads (attendee TikToks, C‑SPAN archives) and audio/video forensics — matching timestamps, full event recordings and statements from the person who filmed the unedited clip — to demonstrate that sensational audio and sounds were added after the fact or that stills were doctored; Reuters, AFP, AP, Snopes and regional outlets reached the same basic conclusion in the key cases examined [1] [2] [6] [4] [3]. Those organizations emphasize the presence of the authentic source footage as the basis for labeling the viral versions altered or deceptively edited [1] [3].
6. Limits of available reporting and alternative readings
Reporting reviewed documents specific, traceable edits in widely shared clips, but it does not purport to catalog every single social post or private video; fact‑checkers note that some manipulated iterations circulated before corrections spread, and partisan actors sometimes amplified deceptive versions for political effect, a dynamic mentioned by AFP and other outlets [1] [8]. Where independent verification exists, major fact‑checkers have consistently found manipulation or context‑stripping; when unedited source footage is not publicly available, the outlets reviewed either refrain from definitive claims or call for more evidence [1] [8].