Ashley Biden’s Diary Controversy: FBI Raids, Project Veritas, and the Media Firestorm

Wren Crowe

6 days ago

The controversy surrounding Ashley Biden’s stolen diary represents a complex intersection of journalism ethics, legal boundaries, political tensions, and privacy concerns. This comprehensive examination reveals how James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas became entangled in a federal investigation after purchasing a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, the subsequent legal proceedings, and the broader implications for media organizations operating in politically charged environments.

After Ashley Biden moved out, Aimee Harris, a 41-year-old Florida resident, moved into the same room at the property

In spring 2020, during the presidential campaign season, Ashley Biden stored personal items, including a diary and other belongings, at a friend’s home in Delray Beach, Florida. She believed these items would remain secure while she was transitioning between residences. This private act would soon transform into a national controversy with significant legal ramifications for multiple parties involved3.

After Ashley Biden moved out, Aimee Harris, a 41-year-old Florida resident, moved into the same room at the property. Harris discovered the stored personal items belonging to Ashley Biden and recognized their potential value. She subsequently contacted Robert Kurlander, who suggested they could sell the items for substantial profit. The pair initially approached Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign, attempting to sell the diary for approximately $20,000 per person, but the Trump campaign declined to purchase the materials1 3. This initial rejection would send Harris and Kurlander seeking alternative buyers, ultimately leading them to Project Veritas.

Undeterred by Trump campaign’s refusal, Harris and Kurlander approached Project Veritas, the conservative media organization founded by James O’Keefe known for conducting undercover sting operations targeting news outlets, government officials, and liberal organizations. Project Veritas agreed to purchase the diary and other personal effects for $40,000, a transaction that occurred during the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election campaign1 3. The timing of this purchase raised questions about potential political motivations behind both the sale and acquisition of these materials, particularly given Project Veritas’s history of targeting Democratic politicians and liberal causes.

According to court records, investigators later discovered that Project Veritas had not only financially compensated Harris and Kurlander for the diary but had also allegedly requested they obtain additional items from Ashley Biden’s residence to help authenticate the diary6. This alleged request for further theft would become a significant factor in the subsequent federal investigation and raised serious questions about the boundaries between journalism and criminal activity.

Rejection would send Harris and Kurlander seeking alternative buyers, ultimately leading them to Project Veritas.

Undeterred by Trump campaign’s refusal, Harris and Kurlander approached Project Veritas, the conservative media organization founded by James O’Keefe known for conducting undercover sting operations targeting news outlets, government officials, and liberal organizations

James O’Keefe founded Project Veritas in 2010, positioning the organization as a news outlet dedicated to exposing corruption and dishonesty in public institutions and mainstream media. Over the years, Project Veritas has become known for its controversial undercover operations, often using hidden cameras and what critics describe as deceptive practices to record subjects without their knowledge or consent2 4. These tactics have earned Project Veritas both ardent supporters who view them as truth-seekers and fierce critics who question their journalistic ethics and methods.

In the Ashley Biden diary case, Project Veritas’s involvement became public knowledge following FBI raids in November 2021. Federal agents conducted authorized searches on the homes of three Project Veritas members, including James O’Keefe himself. During these raids, agents seized electronic devices, including two mobile phones from O’Keefe’s residence1 2 4. These actions prompted immediate backlash from conservative commentators and free press advocates who questioned whether the federal government was targeting a media organization for political reasons.

Throughout the investigation, Project Veritas and O’Keefe consistently maintained that they were operating as journalists and should therefore be protected by the First Amendment. In court filings, their lawyers argued that “the government’s investigation seems undertaken not to vindicate any real interests of justice, but rather to stifle the press from investigating the President’s family”2 7. They further suggested it was “impossible to imagine the government investigating an abandoned diary… had the diary not been written by someone with the last name ‘Biden'”2 7. This defense formed the cornerstone of their legal strategy as they sought to frame the investigation as politically motivated rather than a legitimate law enforcement action.

Project Veritas claimed it ultimately decided not to publish the diary because they could not verify it belonged to Ashley Biden3 5. However, in November 2020, another conservative outlet, The National File, did publish what it claimed was the complete diary, with minor redactions3. This created a situation where the diary’s contents were circulating in certain media circles, despite Project Veritas’s decision not to publish.

The relationship between O’Keefe and Project Veritas eventually fractured in February 2023, when O’Keefe was ousted from the organization he founded amid allegations regarding the misuse of donor funds4 6. Following his departure, O’Keefe established a new organization with similar objectives while continuing to portray himself as a target of government overreach. This organizational split occurred while the legal proceedings related to the diary were still ongoing, adding another layer of complexity to the already complicated case.

Throughout the investigation, Project Veritas and O’Keefe consistently maintained that they were operating as journalists and should therefore be protected by the First Amendment

The legal ramifications of the Ashley Biden diary theft began to materialize in August 2022 when both Aimee Harris and Robert Kurlander pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property1 7. These guilty pleas confirmed the federal government’s position that the diary had indeed been stolen rather than simply “found” or “abandoned” as some had suggested in public discourse about the case.

Harris received her sentence in April 2024, when Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan federal court ordered her to serve one month in prison and three months of home confinement, along with three years of probation. During the sentencing hearing, Judge Swain described Harris’s conduct as “despicable” and “heinous,” emphasizing that her actions were willful and constituted a serious invasion of privacy1 3. The court also ordered Harris to forfeit the $20,000 she had received from Project Veritas for the diary, effectively negating any financial gain from her criminal actions.

While Harris faced her punishment, the legal situation for Project Veritas followed a different trajectory. In December 2023, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres rejected Project Veritas’s First Amendment claims in a significant ruling that had implications beyond just this case2 4 7. The organization had argued that as journalists, they were protected from having to reveal sources or turn over certain materials. Judge Torres ruled that these arguments were “inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent” and noted that Project Veritas could not claim to be protecting the identity of confidential sources after those individuals had already publicly pleaded guilty2 7. This ruling allowed prosecutors access to approximately 900 documents related to the case, materials that had been produced from the November 2021 raids.

The legal battles continued into mid-2024, with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting the assertion of journalist-source privilege invoked by Spencer Meads, a former Project Veritas staffer involved with the diary theft case. The court simultaneously upheld the use of a crime-fraud exception previously placed over certain records tied to the theft8. These rulings further eroded Project Veritas’s claims of journalistic privilege in connection with the diary case.

In a surprising development in February 2025, the Justice Department announced it would not be bringing charges against anyone affiliated with Project Veritas following their long-running investigation6. The reasons for this decision were not publicly disclosed, leaving room for speculation about whether the transition in administration may have influenced this outcome. Despite the lack of charges, the investigation had already resulted in significant consequences for Project Veritas, including the seizure of materials and devices, substantial legal expenses, and potentially contributing to the organizational turmoil that led to O’Keefe’s departure.

Their arguments centered on the premise that receiving and potentially publishing information of public interest, particularly information related to the family of a presidential candidate, fell squarely within protected press activities

The Ashley Biden diary case raises profound questions about the boundaries of First Amendment protections for journalists and the ethical responsibilities of media organizations. Throughout the legal proceedings, Project Veritas consistently positioned itself as a news organization engaged in legitimate journalistic activities entitled to constitutional protections. Their arguments centered on the premise that receiving and potentially publishing information of public interest, particularly information related to the family of a presidential candidate, fell squarely within protected press activities2 4.

Judge Torres’s December 2023 ruling rejecting these First Amendment claims emphasized the limitations of journalistic privilege, particularly in cases where there is evidence of participation in or knowledge of criminal activity. The court determined that journalist privileges do not extend to situations where media organizations might be complicit in the acquisition of stolen property2 4 7. This ruling established an important precedent regarding the limits of First Amendment protections for news organizations that become entangled in potentially illegal activities while pursuing stories.

The case also highlighted tensions regarding journalistic source protection, a cornerstone principle in news gathering. While reporters typically enjoy some protection against being forced to reveal confidential sources, the courts determined that this protection does not extend to sources who have publicly admitted to criminal activity, as Harris and Kurlander had done through their guilty pleas2 7. This distinction clarifies important boundaries regarding when and how journalist-source privilege can be invoked.

Beyond legal considerations, the controversy sparked debate about journalistic ethics in the digital age. Traditional journalistic ethics emphasize that reporters should not participate in illegal activities to obtain information, nor should they directly pay sources for stolen materials. Project Veritas’s alleged request for Harris and Kurlander to obtain additional items from Ashley Biden’s residence to authenticate the diary raised serious questions about adherence to these principles6. Media ethics experts have pointed to this case as an important reminder that the means by which information is obtained matters as much as the information itself, particularly when those means potentially involve encouraging or facilitating criminal activity.

Some commentators specifically questioned whether similar investigative resources would have been deployed if the diary belonged to a family member of a Republican politician

The Ashley Biden diary controversy unfolded against the backdrop of a deeply polarized American political landscape, with reactions largely splitting along partisan lines. Among conservatives, particularly those critical of the Biden administration, the federal investigation was characterized as government overreach and an attempt to shield the President’s family from scrutiny5. Many questioned why federal law enforcement would allocate resources to investigate the theft of a diary, suggesting such a response would be disproportionate if the victim were not related to a prominent political figure.

In discussions on social media and conservative outlets, the diary controversy was frequently compared to other investigations involving political figures’ families, with claims of disparate treatment depending on political affiliation5. Some commentators specifically questioned whether similar investigative resources would have been deployed if the diary belonged to a family member of a Republican politician, suggesting a potential double standard in law enforcement priorities.

The controversy also fed into broader debates about media bias and the different standards applied to the private lives of political figures depending on their party affiliation. Some conservatives argued that had the diary belonged to a Trump family member, mainstream media outlets would have published its contents without hesitation5. Others countered that the reluctance to publish stemmed from ethical concerns about using stolen personal materials and the inability to verify the diary’s authenticity, rather than political bias.

Public opinion on James O’Keefe remained divided throughout the controversy. His supporters viewed him as a courageous journalist willing to challenge powerful institutions, while critics saw him as engaging in deceptive practices that fall outside the bounds of legitimate journalism. The Justice Department’s February 2025 decision not to pursue charges against Project Veritas was viewed by O’Keefe’s supporters as vindication, though it did little to resolve the fundamental disagreements about his methods and motivations6.

Judge Torres’s ruling emphasized that once individuals have publicly admitted to criminal activity, media organizations cannot continue to shield information about their interactions with these individuals under the guise of source protection

The legal proceedings in the Ashley Biden diary case established several important precedents that will likely influence future cases involving media organizations, stolen materials, and claims of journalistic privilege. The rejection of Project Veritas’s First Amendment claims by multiple courts clarified that journalistic protections have definite boundaries, particularly when there are allegations of complicity in criminal activity2 4 7. These rulings reinforced the principle that while the press enjoys substantial constitutional protections, these protections do not constitute a license to participate in or encourage illegal activities.

The court decisions also addressed the scope of journalistic privilege regarding the protection of confidential sources. Judge Torres’s ruling emphasized that once individuals have publicly admitted to criminal activity, media organizations cannot continue to shield information about their interactions with these individuals under the guise of source protection2 7. This clarification provides guidance for future cases where the lines between legitimate source relationships and potential complicity become blurred.

For practicing journalists and media organizations, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the legal risks associated with receiving and potentially publishing materials of questionable provenance. The seizure of devices and documents from Project Veritas members demonstrated that claims of journalistic privilege will not automatically shield news organizations from investigative scrutiny when there are credible allegations of involvement in criminal activity1 2 4. This outcome may prompt media organizations to establish more rigorous protocols for vetting information sources and determining whether materials were obtained legally.

The Justice Department’s ultimate decision not to pursue charges against Project Veritas, despite the extensive investigation, raises questions about the criteria used to determine when media organizations cross the line from aggressive reporting to criminal complicity6. This decision, while welcomed by press freedom advocates, leaves some ambiguity about exactly where that line exists, potentially creating uncertainty for investigative journalists navigating similar ethical dilemmas in the future.

Blurring the boundaries between traditional journalism, partisan media, and political campaigns, this case forces us to reconsider how news is gathered and shared in the digital era

The Ashley Biden diary controversy illuminates several important tensions in contemporary American society: between press freedom and privacy rights, between aggressive journalism and ethical boundaries, and between legitimate law enforcement and potential political influence. The resolution of the case, with criminal consequences for those who stole the diary but ultimately no charges for Project Veritas, leaves open questions about the appropriate legal framework for similar situations in the future.

For media organizations, particularly those engaged in investigative journalism, the case serves as a reminder that journalistic privilege has limits, especially when there are credible allegations of complicity in criminal activity. The courts’ rejection of Project Veritas’s First Amendment claims established important precedent regarding these boundaries, while still preserving the core protections that allow journalists to pursue stories of public interest without undue government interference.

Blurring the boundaries between traditional journalism, partisan media, and political campaigns, this case forces us to reconsider how news is gathered and shared in the digital era. Every piece of information has become a strategic asset, and the methods used to obtain it are under constant scrutiny. When high-profile political figures and their families are involved, finding the right balance between transparency, privacy, and legality isn’t just challenging—it’s essential.

Citations: