One thing we’re learning from this year’s primaries is that old-fashioned organizing can beat television advertising. In primaries, anyway. This may be good news, as campaign television ads tend to be more manipulative than informative. It also means the candidate with less money can win. See The Left Notches Another Win With This Secret Weapon: Old-Fashioned Organizing at the New York Times.
Now, let’s talk about Natalie Harp. Paul Waldman says we absolutely should talk about Natalie Harp. Ever since Jon Ossoff brought her up in a speech a few days ago, all of a sudden there are headlines about Natalie Harp all over the place. Which is interesting, because the press has known about Natalie Harp for a long time. Vanity Fair even ran a feature story on her back in February 2025. She just wasn’t all that newsworthy until Sen. Ossoff talked about her, I guess.
If you haven’t heard, Natalie Harp is, basically, Trump’s security blanket. She’s called the “human printer” because she carries around a portable printer so she can print out items flattering to Trump for him to read. Apparently her primary job is to placate Trump and try to keep him cheerful, if that’s possible. She also keyboards his Truth Social posts. She texts world leaders on Trump’s behalf. And she’s with him pretty much constantly, by all accounts. While no one claims she is any kind of policy adviser, her proximity to Trump does raise questions about whether, for example, her role as gatekeeper of good or bad news affects his decisions. Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman discuss this issue with each other at The New Republic.
But before we go any further, what was it Jon Ossoff said that has, apparently, touched off a media frenzy? Simply this — speaking of Trump, Sen. Ossoff said, “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.”
At the Cross Section, Paul Waldman wrote,
It’s remarkable that all Ossoff had to do was say Natalie Harp’s name and Republicans immediately lost their minds. White House communications director Steven Cheung mustered all the class and professionalism for which he is known and tweeted “John Jackoff has to be the biggest cuck loser in politics.” …
…Republicans in the media chimed in with their own eruption of rage, pretending to be feminist allies defending Harp’s wounded honor against Ossoff’s horrifying attack. “What a gross misogynistic thing to say,” said Marc Thiessen. “You ow [sic] this young woman an apology.” “Who accuses women of behaving like that because he doesn’t like their boss” said Ari Fleischer. “This guy should be ashamed.”
Pardon, behaving like what? Who’s the one making assumptions here?
As far as I’ve seen, no one on the Democratic side or in media has accused Trump and Harp of having an affair. But the fact that she goes everywhere he goes is undeniable. She was even among the chosen few who hid with Trump in the famous catering truck. So Jon Ossoff wasn’t accusing her of anything but simply stating observable fact.
But when CNN reporter Kristen Holmes asked Trump for a comment on Ossoff’s remarks, Trump threw on of his signature fits.
“Quiet, quiet, quiet. You’re very disrespectful.” After she told him she worked for CNN, he responded: “Fake news, you’re fake news, you’re a loud boisterous person. You’re fake news. Be quiet. Be quiet. You’re a fake reporter and you report fake news.” He talked over her as she tried to ask a question.
And, y’know what? I personally don’t care whether they’re having an affair or not. I’m more interested in what role Harp plays in keeping Trump insulated from reality.
But here’s what freaks me out even more. You remember David Axelrod? Axelrod is a Democratic party strategist best know for working for President Obama in various capacities. And Axelrod thinks that Jon Ossoff should have not brought up Natalie Harp. Mention of her was a “distraction” and a “detraction; from the issues and from Ossoff’s message.
Going back to something Greg Sargent said at The New Republic,
Jon Ossoff said three words, poked the bear, and as a result, he’s getting viciously abused across the internet and across the airwaves, but he forced a conversation over what we’re talking about. And that strikes me as something Democrats should learn from.
I have this sort of formula in my head where Democrats spend a little too much time denying the false things that are said about them, and not enough time kind of forcing Trump and Republicans to deny true things about themselves. Does that make sense, Paul?
In other words, what we see here is what happens when a Democrat speaks plain truths about the president. It forces the discussion in a direction that puts Trump on the defensive and reveals things about Trump and the MAGA movement. I think Democrats can learn from that.
And Paul Waldman responds,
But I think that it was incredibly revealing, the way that the White House and basically the entire conservative movement just kind of exploded in anger at this. That really shows that you’ve struck a nerve. And so I think Democrats should think about, you know, what other nerves they want to strike.
Now we’re talking. We need more Democrats speaking the plain truth about what a disaster this Trump Administration has been.
Instead of apologizing, the Dems need to double down — how is Trump really spending his time? He’s focused on the ballroom and the arch and getting his name on the Kennedy Center and his fancy flying palace Air Force One. Not on the business of the people. And maybe this Natalie Harp person is part of the problem. Maybe she’s protecting him from too much bad news. He appears to have no idea what’s really going on. Can we get some answers about this stuff? And since when has anyone working in the White House been off limits?
So what’s next? Let’s have some major Democratic figures like Ossoff or Newsom or Mark Kelly in a major speech question why Trump takes so many cognitive tests. Is he in early stage Alzheimer’s (I wouldn’t be surprised)? The American people have a right to know. And what about the billions the Trump family is making directly from Trump’s position? Let’s stop tip-toeing around that and just go straight to accusation. Yes, it’s been reported in the press. But let’s see how that issue can be used by Democrats to strike some Repulican nerves. Don’t be shy.
In the porn industry, there's a staff position called a "fluffer." They don't appear on camera, but they prepare the male actor so he can come on scene… ready to act. As I apply it to Natalie, it's very much a metaphor. Probably about the time Trump became incontinent, any remedies for ED became useless. And Trump has smelled bad for a long time.
And, no. I never worked in the porn industry. At age 70, it’s probably too late to consider a career change.
Natalie deliberately functions to keep Trump 'up' emotionally, especially shielding him from the reality of his choices and the more harsh results. Especially, she creates the false impression that he's doing it right, nothing is going wrong, and everyone loves him. One can not fault her for taking on an ambitious role. Probably, every POTUS has a fluffer, who tries to put a good spin on things. Natalie's presence, and the fact she's reportedly with Trump so much, is alarming if only because the President needs a "Human Support Staffer" full time to prop him up. (H/T to Tom Sullivan at Digby's for that staff title.)
In a sane world, Trump would have been warned that Iran would not crumble under an air attack alone, and a ground assault in Iran would likely cost thousands of US lives with no likelihood of success. It looks like Hesgeth was eager to exercise his latest testosterone shot with a new war. It looks like anyone with the qualifications and the inclination to issue a warning was not allowed in the discussion. That exclusion of a dissenting opinion is a different kind of fluffing, but it works the same way – to build up false confidence when the predictable outcome will be impotent failure.
The 25th Amendment was written to remove a President who demonstrated the need for a full staff of fluffers to insulate him from his screw-ups. It presumes the Congress would not confirm unqualified fools to positions of power when their selection is/was based on loyalty to a person rather than the country. Also fluffers.
There's still a chance, a good chance the country and the Constitution will survive. We survived the Civil War, the Great Depression, WWII, McCarthy, and other dark times. The country is the people, and I have confidence in the majority coming to their senses if things get bad enough. And I have confidence in Trump's ability to make it that bad.
One of the psychics I follow said there's nothing sexual between 45 and Harp (it's been a long time since the stubby mushroom firmed up), she's his security blanket, but he doesn't really listen to her when it comes to deciding anything. He likes her around, but could easily toss her away like an old kleenex. The Secret Service is worried about that exact scenario – given her excessive fawning, what would she do if he did indeed throw her away?
The flaccid mushroom is also why 45 isn't the father of Karoline Leavitt's baby (and I hope this is the last time I will ever write that professional liar's name, ever).
I'm also told that despite Harp's belief that 45 cured her of bone cancer, she's actually still sick, and there's some heavy medical treatment in her future. Bone cancer is one of the cancers that's hard to cure.
I was thrilled to hear that Angie Nixon won in Florida, despite being outspent by the establishment backed candidate 16:1. She's a union organizer and a fighter, and has her work cut out for her.
David Axelrod can go pound salt. A Yesterday's Man if there ever was one. I was thrilled to read that Ossoff's comment triggered such a reaction.
I wanna get one – saw a sticker somebody put on a gas pump:
"PRICE INCLUDES EPSTEIN FILES DISTRACTION SURCHARGE"
You know, if I were running FSB or Mossad, this so-called fluffer would be a perfect setup for an asset. I wonder how much thought has been applied to this scenario?
Does she have a security clearance, yet?
Minor quibble: FSB is internal security in the Russian Federation. It is unlikely to be trying to infiltrate the White House.
If any Russian Service was trying, it would more likely be the SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) or the GRU (the Main Directorate of the General Staff), the main military intelligence service which seems to have a pretty wide remit.
Given the choice I'd go with Mossad or maybe Unit 8200 though I don't know if Unit 8200 runs agents.
What if she was placed there as a Russian asset? She could have been approached when she was a media talking head and offered a fortune to provide slavish devotion and praise. It sounds like a typical, Russian, long-play operation.
“I personally don’t care whether they’re having an affair or not”
I sure hope not. The thought of anyone fucking Trump is just plain gross.
Thx, Maha, I've been curious about this kerfuffle, but not enough to bother looking into it. I agree that Dems certainly should be using this kind of "attack" – essentially, throwing in oblique references to weird stuff (what is Harp's "position"?) while actually questioning the real problems (Trump focusing on his aesthetic whims rather than real policy).
My only other observation on this is that Harp seems to be one of the few women around Trump who does not suffer from Maralago Face. I guess she still looks girlish enough that Trump hasn't (yet) blurted something crass to her about "getting work done"?
The problem with outreach versus TV ads from the POV of the consultant class is not effectiveness, but lucrativeness. Hard to collect a commission on door knocks.