Why Trump Inner Circle Fears Blonde Companion, 34: Biographer 79%

By Julia Ornedo0% Inside Trump's Head0%

6/27/2026, 7:46:07 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 66.5% saturation with 487 hits. Analysis detected 2,352 faulty-reasoning hits from 732 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.5% and a BS Rank of 79% (4,670 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.70% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump’s “human printer” isn’t just his most ardent devotee—she also wields great power that has stirred concern in the White House, according to his longtime biographer. 
Author Michael Wolff said Natalie Harp, the president’s 34-year-old aide, filters everything Trump reads in her role that ranges from typing out the 80-year-old president’s raging Truth Social posts to printing out his daily reads. 
“Everything that he reads is funneled through Natalie Harp because she’s the human printer,” Wolff told Inside Trump’s Head co-host Joanna Coles. 
“The stuff that she prints out is this laudatory stuff. 
Anything laudatory, she’s searching for at all times and then giving to the president,” he added. 
“Other things that will cause him ire—actually, that would be her agenda. 
So things that cause her ire—that will also cause the president ire—that goes to him.” 
But Harp’s printouts aren’t all business, according to Wolff. 
In his 2025 book All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America, Wolff cataloged a set of eyebrow-raising notes that Harp wrote Trump and squeezed into his reading. 
“In this pile of papers, she also frequently includes personal notes to him, and notes that, you know, [say] ‘You’re the alpha and the omega,’ ‘The be all and end all,’ ‘What would I be without you?’” 
Wolff said. 
Those cringeworthy notes once again drew national attention after White House correspondents Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan dove into the odd relationship between Harp and Trump in their book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump. 
Harp once wrote Trump an adoring letter that read, “You are all that matters to me.” 
The message was so bizarre that Susie Wiles, who would later become Trump’s White House chief of staff, asked herself, “Where am I?” 
according to the authors. 
Wolff said there was a widespread concern within Trump’s orbit over Harp’s love letters. 
“Natalie Harp’s story is a piece of work,” he said. 
“Everybody was in a major kerfuffle over this, including the Secret Service warning the president of the United States, or warning aides to the president whose job it was then to bring to the president whether they did or not, that they saw her as a danger to herself and to him.” 
“Those notes, the Natalie Harp notes, were passed to me by other aides of the president who were equally as appalled by this,” Wolff added. 
“And that’s one of the things that exists, currently, in the Trump White House, this tension that this is a person who the president has allowed to become really his closest confidant.” 
The White House shot back with its boilerplate attack on Wolff. 
“Michael Wolff is a lying sack of shit and has been proven to be a fraud. 
He routinely fabricates stories originating from his sick and warped imagination, only possible because he has a severe and debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has rotted his peanut-sized brain,” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said. 
Harp, a onetime anchor and host for the right-wing news network One America News, has no official title but has long been glued to Trump’s side. 
She earned her moniker “human printer” by following Trump around, fulfilling his every request, including fetching merchandise, performing Google searches, printing stories from right-wing websites, and suggesting possible Truth Social posts. 
Harp was also one of the few people to fawn over Trump’s tacky Oval Office redesign, according to Haberman and Swan. 
“As the year progressed, he kept jamming more gold pieces onto the mantel,” they wrote of the president’s gaudy renovations. 
“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.” 
During the early months of Trump’s second term, the authors added, he began telling staff that Harp “was the only one who loved him as much as his wife and his kids.” 
“All of you will go off and make money,” he would tell his other aides. 
“She’ll never leave me.” 
Find and subscribe to Inside Trump’s Head with Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. 
New episodes of incomparable insight into the psyche of the world’s most talked-about man drop every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday evening on YouTube and Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday mornings on other podcast platforms. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.7%Julia Ornedo: 4.6%The Daily Beast: 4.5%Confirmation Bias13.7%This article: 4.2%Julia Ornedo: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 9.4%Julia Ornedo: 3.5%The Daily Beast: 3.6%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 2.0%Julia Ornedo: 2.3%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 1.2%The Daily Beast: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Julia Ornedo: 9.0%The Daily Beast: 11.2%Framing Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.4%Julia Ornedo: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Julia Ornedo: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 0.5%Julia Ornedo: 0.7%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.5%This article: 66.5%Julia Ornedo: 17.0%The Daily Beast: 19.9%Negativity Bias66.5%This article: 5.2%Julia Ornedo: 1.9%The Daily Beast: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 6.4%Julia Ornedo: 1.3%The Daily Beast: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error6.4%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Julia Ornedo: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 1.3%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 3.6%Julia Ornedo: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.7%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 1.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.1%Julia Ornedo: 2.3%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Recency Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Julia Ornedo: 4.8%The Daily Beast: 5.1%Ad Hominem8.9%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Julia Ornedo: 6.3%The Daily Beast: 3.2%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 8.7%Julia Ornedo: 1.1%The Daily Beast: 1.1%False Dilemma8.7%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.3%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.8%Julia Ornedo: 7.8%The Daily Beast: 6.4%Hasty Generalization22.8%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%Julia Ornedo: 2.0%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 9.7%Julia Ornedo: 4.6%The Daily Beast: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion9.7%This article: 1.6%Julia Ornedo: 1.2%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 1.3%The Daily Beast: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 5.2%Julia Ornedo: 0.7%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Tu Quoque5.2%This article: 9.3%Julia Ornedo: 1.6%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Burden of Proof9.3%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 29.0%Julia Ornedo: 5.8%The Daily Beast: 3.8%Anecdotal29.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.2%Julia Ornedo: 3.1%The Daily Beast: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.2%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.1%Julia Ornedo: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.1%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Julia Ornedo: 2.5%The Daily Beast: 4.6%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 5.1%Julia Ornedo: 3.9%The Daily Beast: 3.3%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 26.1%Julia Ornedo: 9.1%The Daily Beast: 18.3%Biased Writer Voice26.1%This article: 2.9%Julia Ornedo: 0.7%The Daily Beast: 0.8%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Julia Ornedo: 1.0%The Daily Beast: 3.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Julia Ornedo: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.6%This article: 7.4%Julia Ornedo: 5.7%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.4%

732 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers59%attributed speech298writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 35 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 37 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSusie Wiles • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 10 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 52 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageSteven Cheung • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Cheung • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMaggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMaggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Steven Cheung

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words12% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-32.9 ptsWriter: 32.9%Steven Cheung: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.1 ptsWriter: 18.1%Steven Cheung: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Steven Cheung: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Steven Cheung: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Steven Cheung: 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.