What were the findings of the investigation into Tara Reade's allegations against Joe Biden?
Executive summary
Investigations and major news inquiries into Tara Reade’s 1993 allegation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her reached no definitive public finding that corroborated her account: major news organizations reported they could not locate contemporaneous official complaints and found little corroboration from former Biden staffers [1] [2]. Reade has continued legal and public efforts — including lawsuits and claims of government investigation — but reporting shows mixed evidence about her record and credibility, and available sources do not report a formal criminal finding against Biden [3] [4] [5].
1. What journalists actually investigated: document searches and interviews
News outlets including The New York Times and others sought contemporaneous records and interviewed former Biden staffers; those investigations reported they could not find a formal complaint Reade said she filed with the Senate and found no corroboration from other staffers about the assault she described [1] [2]. PBS summarized Reade’s account and noted she said she filed a limited report with a congressional personnel office that “did not explicitly accuse him of sexual assault or harassment,” a detail investigators tried to verify [6].
2. The result journalists reported: no corroboration, no pattern
The large-scale reporting concluded there was no independent corroboration of the specific assault allegation and that no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden was found in their reporting; that absence of corroboration was central to outlets’ conclusions rather than a formal exoneration via a judicial or police finding [2] [1].
3. Investigative limits: absence of proof is not proof of absence
Reporting focused on the inability to locate a complaint and on former colleagues’ statements, which leaves gaps: inability to find records decades later is not proof an event did not occur, and news outlets flagged those evidentiary limits while reporting they found no corroboration [1] [6]. Available sources do not mention any final criminal prosecution or judicial ruling determining guilt or innocence.
4. Reade’s subsequent legal and political actions
After the 2020 reporting, Reade pursued civil and administrative avenues: she filed suits and complaints alleging government mistreatment and sought records from the FBI and DOJ, and in 2025 she amended litigation claiming damages and alleging “weaponization” by government actors — actions that signal ongoing legal contention rather than a closed investigative finding [3] [4]. Newsweek reported a $100 million amendment to a complaint alleging government targeting [3].
5. Credibility questions and competing evidence raised in reporting
Several outlets reported on discrepancies and challenges related to Reade’s background and accounts: investigations looked into whether she filed the complaints she described, noted differences in descriptions over time, and reported inquiries in California about whether she gave false testimony in other contexts [1] [7]. Those threads were used by some journalists to question aspects of her credibility while others and advocacy groups emphasized believing survivors and the need to hear allegations [8] [7].
6. Political and informational context: how the story was used
Coverage shows the allegation became a politically charged issue during the 2020 campaign and later was amplified in various venues; Reade’s move to Russia and involvement with Russian media were reported and introduced a geopolitical dimension to public perception of her claims [9] [5]. Meanwhile advocacy groups wrote statements about believing survivors while also calling for fair process [8].
7. What the public record contains now — and what it does not
Major news investigations concluded they could not find the contemporaneous complaint Reade described and did not corroborate her specific account through other staff members, and available sources show no public criminal conviction or official investigative finding holding Biden responsible [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention a formal criminal finding or a conclusive investigative report exonerating or convicting either party.
8. Why the difference between reporting and a legal finding matters
Journalists’ inability to corroborate an allegation is different from a legal determination: reporting establishes what evidence reporters could locate and whom they could interview; courts or prosecutors make legalistic findings based on different procedures. Sources show active litigation and allegations of government misconduct by Reade — not a closed criminal investigative outcome [4] [3].
Limitations and competing viewpoints are explicit in the sources: investigative reports documented lack of corroboration [1] [2], advocates urged listening to survivors [8], and Reade has continued legal claims and public activism that maintain the dispute [3] [4].