Trump, 80, Accused of ‘Very Unhealthy’ Relationship With Blonde Aide, 34 59%

By Ewan Palmer0%

6/26/2026, 1:42:52 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Horn Effect, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 155 hits. Analysis detected 657 faulty-reasoning hits from 625 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.4% and a BS Rank of 59% (9,042 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.70% of the article peer group.

White House aide Natalie Harp’s obsession with Donald Trump has become so severe that her own brother has spoken out. 
Preston Harp, 38, the estranged brother of Trump’s favorite personal assistant, blasted the 80-year-old president and his too-close-for-comfort bond with Preston’s 34-year-old sister. 
In an interview with The Daily Mail, Preston called Trump a “national embarrassment” and said his sister’s relationship with him is “very unhealthy.” 
“She’s just like his fan club,” Preston said. 
Harp has been a constant in Trump’s orbit since she joined his team in 2022 without an official role. 
A former host at the right-wing news network OAN, Harp first came into contact with Trump when she thanked him for signing the Right to Try Act in 2019, which she said allowed her to receive experimental treatment for her bone cancer. 
The Washington Post has cast doubt on this claim. 
Harp has since risen through the ranks to become Trump’s favorite personal assistant, her devotion to the president becoming so intense that it caused concern within the Secret Service. 
She has earned the nickname the “human printer” because she constantly follows Trump around with a portable printer, supplying paper copies of emails, news articles, and other documents for him to read rather than having the 80-year-old president look at them on a screen. 
According to Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, a new book by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, Harp would leave gushing letters for Trump in his “personal spaces” before joining the White House staff. 
One reportedly read, “You are all that matters to me.” 
The string of love letters freaked out future White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who asked herself, “Where am I?” 
according to Haberman and Swan. 
Preston said he was also shocked to learn his sister was working for Trump and only discovered it after a friend showed him a Daily Mail article from March 2023 about Trump’s “glamorous new assistant.” 
“And I had no idea,” Preston told the outlet. 
“And so it just kind of caused some cognitive dissonance. 
I don’t understand why my sister, or anyone, could want to work for Trump.” 
Preston, who lives in Nicaragua and is described by the Mail as a “long-haired hippie,” said he and his sister are complete opposites. 
Growing up, Natalie was closer to their “extremely conservative” and “deeply religious” mother, while Preston shared a stronger bond with their father, who died by suicide in July 2020. 
The siblings have not spoken since falling out over their father’s death. 
Preston claimed his mother and sister wanted to say Robert Harp had died in his sleep. 
“It’s hard to believe that’s my sister and my mom,” Preston told the Mail. 
“I can’t connect with that vibe, so I’m just going to let it be.” 
Concerns about Harp’s obsession with Trump were also detailed in Michael Wolff’s book All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America, about the Republicans’ 2024 presidential campaign. 
Wolff revealed that Harp’s “fixation” on Trump was an open secret and described fawning letters she wrote to him around 2023, including one in which she said she was “unworthy” of his support. 
The “aggressiveness” of Harp’s attention also reportedly raised concerns within the Secret Service, which considered her a “potential danger” to the future president, according to All or Nothing. 
Early in his second term, Trump told his team that Harp “was the only one who loved him as much as his wife and his kids,” according to Regime Change. 
“All of you will go off and make money,” Trump told other staffers. 
“She’ll never leave me.” 
The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 7.4%The Daily Beast: 4.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.3%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 3.1%The Daily Beast: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.7%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Ewan Palmer: 1.9%The Daily Beast: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.6%This article: 24.8%Ewan Palmer: 10.7%The Daily Beast: 11.2%Framing Effect24.8%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.9%The Daily Beast: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Ewan Palmer: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Optimism Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Ewan Palmer: 25.4%The Daily Beast: 19.9%Negativity Bias17.9%This article: 4.8%Ewan Palmer: 1.6%The Daily Beast: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias4.8%This article: 3.7%Ewan Palmer: 4.3%The Daily Beast: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.0%The Daily Beast: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Ewan Palmer: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.9%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Ewan Palmer: 2.3%The Daily Beast: 1.1%Horn Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.8%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.0%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Ewan Palmer: 5.0%The Daily Beast: 5.1%Ad Hominem3.7%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.7%Ewan Palmer: 4.7%The Daily Beast: 3.2%Appeal to Authority10.7%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.6%The Daily Beast: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Ewan Palmer: 7.2%The Daily Beast: 6.4%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.3%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.1%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.7%Ewan Palmer: 4.7%The Daily Beast: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion6.7%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.8%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 2.7%The Daily Beast: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 2.7%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.7%Ewan Palmer: 7.4%The Daily Beast: 3.8%Anecdotal6.7%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.2%Ewan Palmer: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.2%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.3%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 6.0%The Daily Beast: 4.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.8%Ewan Palmer: 3.7%The Daily Beast: 3.3%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 5.0%Ewan Palmer: 15.8%The Daily Beast: 18.3%Biased Writer Voice5.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 1.8%Ewan Palmer: 5.0%The Daily Beast: 3.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 1.5%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ewan Palmer: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

625 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers74%attributed speech164writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coveragePreston Harp • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageNatalie Harp • 42 words • 0.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Haberman • 41 words • 0.0% coverageNatalie Harp • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSusie Wiles • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Haberman • 5 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 35 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 9 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 10 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Harp • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageThe Daily Beast • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Natalie Harp

81%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words11% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.9 ptsWriter: 18.9%Natalie Harp: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Natalie Harp: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Natalie Harp: 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.