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.
What specific entries in the 2020 Ashley Biden diary allege wrongdoing and who authenticated them?
Executive summary
Reporting shows that pages published online in 2020 depict Ashley Biden writing about “showers with dad,” fears she was “molested,” and other traumatic, sexualized experiences; multiple fact-checkers and news outlets say the physical diary was stolen and later linked to Project Veritas and sellers who pleaded guilty (see court reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Fact-checkers such as Snopes and Newsweek say Ashley Biden’s later court letter and related reporting provide strong evidence the diary is hers, while major outlets and Project Veritas at times declined independent on‑the‑record verification of every published page [4] [5] [6].
1. What the leaked pages allege — specific entries that became the focus
The widely circulated excerpts contain first‑person passages in which the writer recounts showering with her father at an age she later called “probably not appropriate,” expresses fears she may have been molested as a child, and describes hyper‑sexualized or traumatic experiences tied to substance use and recovery; those are the specific lines that drove public attention and political reaction [1] [7] [8].
2. Who possessed and sold the diary: the criminal case that anchors provenance
Federal court records and Reuters reporting show two Florida residents admitted pleading guilty to stealing Ashley Biden’s diary and selling it to Project Veritas, with prosecutors saying Project Veritas paid roughly $20,000 to each seller (total of about $40,000 in reporting) and that the items were peddled during the 2020 campaign [2] [9] [3].
3. Authentication developments: what fact‑checkers and Ashley Biden said
Snopes updated its prior “unproven” assessment after Ashley Biden’s April 2024 letter to a New York judge stating the journal was her property and lamenting its theft, a development Snopes and Newsweek say provides the strongest basis to treat the diary as authentic in authorship [4] [5]. Snopes’ change reflects that Ashley Biden herself acknowledged the diary was hers and that court filings tied the stolen property to her [4].
4. Limits of authentication: what remains unsettled in reporting
Even after those developments, earlier reporting and Project Veritas’ own statements show the organization decided not to publish the diary in 2020 because it could not independently verify every page; other outlets published digital copies obtained from people claiming Project Veritas sources, but news outlets and fact‑checkers cautioned that photographic or online copies are a different verification problem than proving the physical diary belonged to Ashley [6] [5] [10]. In short, sources distinguish between strong evidence the diary belonged to her and full forensic authentication of each leaked page [4] [6].
5. How different outlets and actors treated the material (competing perspectives)
Conservative outlets and commentators treated the leaked entries as explosive evidence and sought political consequences; Project Veritas bought the physical items and court filings show sellers admitted guilt [2] [3]. Mainstream outlets and fact‑checkers initially treated the published pages with caution, noting the provenance and content needed corroboration; later, outlets such as Snopes and Newsweek said Ashley Biden’s court letter altered that calculus and strengthened the attribution to her [4] [5].
6. What the public record does and does not show about allegations of criminal wrongdoing
Available reporting documents that the diary contains sentences in which Ashley Biden expresses fears of having been molested and recalls showering with her father; those are allegations within a private journal that became public [1] [7]. However, the available sources do not show a criminal investigation that produced independent findings proving Joe Biden committed a crime stemming from those passages; major fact‑checking organizations note the distinction between a journal entry and legally substantiated criminal findings [10] [6].
7. Why provenance matters and how it shaped reaction
Provenance—who found, sold and vouchsafed the diary—drove how credible different audiences treated the pages. Court records tying two sellers to theft and Project Veritas’ purchase established a chain of custody that fact‑checkers say supports the diary’s origin, while Project Veritas’ own hesitation to publish highlighted limits to independent verification and fueled partisan debate over motive and timing [2] [6] [5].
Bottom line for readers
The leaked entries explicitly allege inappropriate showering and express fears of molestation in first person; court reporting and Ashley Biden’s later letter give substantial support that the diary belonged to her and that stolen pages were circulated [1] [2] [4]. Reporting also makes clear a distinction: attribution of the diary to Ashley Biden is now regarded as credible by several fact‑checkers, but the public record does not contain a parallel, independently verified criminal finding about the events described in those private entries [5] [10].