Concerns about President Trump’s executive assistant Natalie Harp are not new. In fact, they first surfaced in February 2025 in a Vanity Fair article written by Michael Wolff. Then, a few months ago, a modest amount of interest bubbled up when New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swift released their book, Regime Change, and noted Harp’s influence and the concern her adoration of the president caused among senior White House staffers and the Secret Service.

Now, attention on Harp has reached a frenzy following a comment by Senator John Ossoff (D-Georgia) at a campaign rally. In a speech to supporters criticizing President Trump, Ossoff said this,

"He doesn't want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar."

MAGA pounced on Ossoff and circled the wagons in defense of Harp who they had previously attempted to shut out. Trump nearly blew a gasket when a CNN reporter asked about Ossoff’s comments and called Ossoff a Pee Wee Herman look-alike.

Since then, countless media stories have been filed asking, “Who is Natalie Harp?” and recounting her bizarre behavior toward the President. Yet, while the media feasts on the juicy details of Harp’s past life and relationship with Trump, many are ignoring yet another example of Trump’s unfitness for office and at the expense of a seemingly troubled young woman.

By now, it is well-documented that Harp’s nickname is the “Human Printer,” because she follows the President with a portable printer and battery pack spitting out hard copies because he prefers paper over a computer screen. Besides the obvious inefficiency and absurdity of paying someone $150,000 per year to follow him and print documents for his review, it is the content Harp prints that is most concerning and underscores the president’s unfitness for office.

According to multiple reports, much of the printing Harp provides is articles from far-right sources on the Internet lauding Trump, assailing his critics, and circulating pro-Trump conspiracy theories. One account from Haberman and Swan in Regime Change illustrates Harp’s role. In the passage, Trump is livid with Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce, because data about tariffs from China and India on U.S. goods is not as damning as Trump needs to defend his counter-tariff strategy. Lutnick’s data comes from the Office of the United States Trade Representative. A seething Trump orders Harp to find him some data, and dutifully she begins to scour the Internet, but fails to find anything supporting her boss’s position.

In essence, Harp’s job is not to provide the President with credible information from highly regarded sources so that he can weigh the data and advice of experts and make a decision in the best interest of the American people. Her priority is to prop up Trump’s delusions about what a great America looks like.

What we know about Harp is that she is a self-proclaimed cancer survivor and credits a law from Trump’s first term known as the Right to Try Act for saving her life. Harp claims she had a rare bone cancer and approved therapies were ineffective. She was allowed to utilize a drug not approved by the FDA for bone cancer treatment. Harp insists it was Trump’s Right to Try measure that saved her life, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Trump’s law allows patients to use drugs or procedures never approved by the FDA for use if they have passed a Phase I clinical trial. The FDA has been allowing drugs approved for one use to be used for another treatment since the 1970s. Nevertheless, Harp, according to her many public statements, faced a terminal illness and had to grapple with her own mortality at a young age.

Reports also indicated that in 2020, just three years after her cancer diagnosis, Harp’s father committed suicide. The tragic death of her father in the midst of COVID-19 contributed to a family schism that has left her estranged from her brother, Preston.

It doesn’t take a board-certified psychologist to know that a terminal illness, the suicide of a parent, and a global pandemic within the span of 4 years could wreak havoc on one’s mental health. That is why any reasonable authority figure with a modicum of character would be concerned about a subordinate who:

·         Sends you personal notes saying, “you’re all that matters” and “you have the right to cuss me out when I make a mistake”

·         Spends the summer living in your country club’s women’s locker room to remain close to you, and

·         Rides in the trunk of an SUV to be with you in court when there aren’t enough seats in the vehicle.

Of course, we know words like “reasonable” and “character” are not descriptors of the man in the Oval Office.

No one but trained medical professionals knows for sure what makes Natalie Harp tick. However curious her behavior has been or continues to be, any humiliation from this latest dust-up belongs to the President and the senior staffers who lack the courage to tell him the truth, not Natalie Harp.