Secrets of Natalie Harp, Donald Trump's Blonde Companion, Exposed 71%

By William Vaillancourt0% The Daily Beast Podcast0%

6/26/2026, 9:41:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Anecdotal, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.2% saturation with 193 hits. Analysis detected 1,724 faulty-reasoning hits from 564 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.8% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,205 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.70% of the article peer group.

The White House’s tight-lipped responses to inquiries about the relationship between Donald Trump and his much younger aide, Natalie Harp, only raise more questions. 
On *The Daily Beast Podcast*, host/chief creative and content officer Joanna Coles and executive editor Hugh Dougherty delved into the odd revelations about the pair, as described by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in their book *Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump. 
* 
In one excerpt, the president calls on Harp to overrule Cabinet members when he wants numbers that fit into his preconceived notions of trade. 
“So, she is fueling his delusions: she is providing him with endless praise that she prints out off random social media, and then it’s all being put out in public, and she is with him round the clock,” Dougherty said of Harp, the 34-year-old who has been referred to as a “human printer” for following Trump around with printouts. 
Harp, according to the book, is so infatuated with the 80-year-old president that she wrote adoring letters to him to find in his personal spaces. 
“You are all that matters to me,” she said in one of them. 
Trump, in turn, reportedly said that Harp, unlike his other staffers, “will never leave me.” 
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, according to the book, seemed taken aback by Harp’s love letters, asking herself, “Where am I?” 
Harp is also behind many of Trump’s social media posts, some of which come late at night or early in the morning. 
“When we’re saying that she’s with him 24/7, are we suggesting that she’s in the White House bedroom with him late at night and in the early hours of the morning Truth Socialing for him?” 
Coles wondered. 
“Well, we don’t have any evidence that that is the case, but we also have a mystery that he is with her more than any of the other aides,” Dougherty replied. 
“It’s very clear that there are no witnesses who are in a position to say exactly when their interactions stop. 
She is absolutely with him later at night than other people. 
That we know,” he continued. 
“What then happens? 
How are they interacting? 
We are unclear.” 
Author Michael Wolff, in his 2025 book *All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America*, also described Harp’s “fixation” with the president. 
It was so extreme that the Secret Service viewed her as a “potential danger” during the 2024 campaign. 
“The White House is refusing to give us any details, any comment on this in this situation,” he continued. 
“They didn’t really elaborate on it to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, who asked about it.” 
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast. 
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt previously said in a brief statement that Harp “is one of the most loyal and hardest working aides on President Trump’s team.” 
Harp was among the few people sitting with Trump when he sat in the Oval Office with the authors for a fact-check interview for their book. 
“It shows just how intensely close in the inner circle she is,” Dougherty said. 
“If a woman of 34 has access to Truth Social and Truth Social is the most important way to communicate for the president, then who’s in charge? 
We don’t know.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.0%William Vaillancourt: 4.6%The Daily Beast: 4.5%Confirmation Bias27.0%This article: 4.3%William Vaillancourt: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.3%This article: 19.1%William Vaillancourt: 6.6%The Daily Beast: 3.6%Availability Heuristic19.1%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%William Vaillancourt: 1.2%The Daily Beast: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 19.3%William Vaillancourt: 10.8%The Daily Beast: 11.2%Framing Effect19.3%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.8%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%William Vaillancourt: 2.0%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Pessimism Bias13.7%This article: 34.2%William Vaillancourt: 15.3%The Daily Beast: 19.9%Negativity Bias34.2%This article: 4.6%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias4.6%This article: 2.5%William Vaillancourt: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error2.5%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.9%The Daily Beast: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%William Vaillancourt: 0.8%The Daily Beast: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.4%This article: 4.6%William Vaillancourt: 3.1%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Halo Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 1.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.6%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%William Vaillancourt: 0.1%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 2.3%The Daily Beast: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.2%William Vaillancourt: 7.5%The Daily Beast: 3.2%Appeal to Authority20.2%This article: 11.0%William Vaillancourt: 2.1%The Daily Beast: 1.1%False Dilemma11.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.4%William Vaillancourt: 8.4%The Daily Beast: 6.4%Hasty Generalization7.4%This article: 2.8%William Vaillancourt: 1.8%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Red Herring2.8%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.3%William Vaillancourt: 8.4%The Daily Beast: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion22.3%This article: 4.8%William Vaillancourt: 1.2%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.9%The Daily Beast: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 22.5%William Vaillancourt: 4.9%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Burden of Proof22.5%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.5%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Composition/Division2.5%This article: 26.4%William Vaillancourt: 3.3%The Daily Beast: 3.8%Anecdotal26.4%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.4%William Vaillancourt: 2.5%The Daily Beast: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.2%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy3.2%This article: 5.5%William Vaillancourt: 8.2%The Daily Beast: 4.6%Unattributed Quote5.5%This article: 20.6%William Vaillancourt: 6.5%The Daily Beast: 3.3%Quote-first Misdirection20.6%This article: 6.0%William Vaillancourt: 9.5%The Daily Beast: 18.3%Biased Writer Voice6.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 3.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.7%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

564 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers67%attributed speech185writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Beast Podcast • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 59 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSusie Wiles • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJoanna Coles • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 31 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 20 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 11 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 5 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 3 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 4 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 14 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 27 words • 0.0% coverageHugh Dougherty • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joanna Coles

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words9.2% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+88.1 ptsWriter: 11.9%Joanna Coles: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.4 ptsWriter: 18.4%Joanna Coles: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-16.8 ptsWriter: 16.8%Joanna Coles: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.