Raw Story93%

Susie Wiles caught off guard by Trump's close relationship with aide: report 70%

By Nicole Charky-Chami0%

6/23/2026, 2:01:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.8% saturation with 154 hits. Analysis detected 883 faulty-reasoning hits from 309 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,747 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.20% of the article peer group.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles was reportedly stunned by the relationship between President Donald Trump and one of his closest aides, according to The Daily Beast. 
Trump has apparently told those in his inner circle that his executive assistant Natalie Harp, 34, will "never leave" him, The Beast reported. 
She has worked closely with the president and has been referred to as "the human printer." 
The Wall Street Journal has also reported that Harp was "the driving force" behind Trump's inflammatory comment shared on his Truth Social platform, including the racist video that depicted former President Barack Obama and former First lady Michelle Obama as apes and the AI-generated image of Trump as Jesus, which was later removed on the platform. 
The nature of the relationship has left Wiles, another one of Trump's closest allies, with questions, according to New York Times White House correspondents Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan in their new book "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump." 
"When Trump was in quasi-exile at his private Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, Harp joined him on the golf course and supplied him with a stream of positive news stories and social media comments," The Beast reported. 
Harp also wrote Trump letters that the president kept in personal areas, including one that said "You are all that matters to me." 
"As the year progressed, he kept jamming more gold pieces onto the mantel," Haberman and Swan wrote. 
"When Trump asked White House residence staff what they thought of the glittering display, most responses were muted, but his devout aide Natalie Harp would gush with delight." 
"The situation was so bizarre that Trump’s future chief of staff Susie Wiles asked herself, 'Where am I?' 
according to Haberman and Swan," The Beast reported. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.1%Nicole Charky-Chami: 4.1%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 31.1%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.7%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic31.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Nicole Charky-Chami: 14.0%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect23.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 49.8%Nicole Charky-Chami: 20.6%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias49.8%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect13.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 7.9%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 43.4%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority43.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 10.8%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 4.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.5%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal16.5%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 39.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 10.3%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote39.2%This article: 32.7%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection32.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 6.2%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 7.4%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

309 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers69%attributed speech97writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Beast • 28 words • 100.0% coverageThe Beast • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageThe Wall Street Journal • 56 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Haberman • 42 words • 0.0% coverageThe Beast • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageMaggie Haberman • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageThe Beast • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words26% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Unattributed Quote-87.6 ptsWriter: 87.6%The Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-47.4 ptsWriter: 47.4%The Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-23.7 ptsWriter: 23.7%The Wall Street Journal: 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.