The White House is backing President Donald Trump’s decision to give $45,000 in cash to Natalie Harp, a close presidential aide, by labeling the payment as a personal holiday gift. The administration states that the gift is ‘entirely permissible’ under federal laws and ethics standards. Harp, who functions as a special and executive assistant to the president, has disclosed the cash transaction in her yearly financial report, identifying Trump as the benefactor and labeling it a ‘cash gift for the holidays.’
Moreover, this payment was part of three separate $45,000 cash gifts bestowed by Trump upon various White House staff members. Communications adviser Margo Martin and White House assistant Chamberlain Harris also reported receiving the same amount from Trump. These gifts were additional to their $150,000 annual government salaries. Financial disclosures reveal Trump also provided a $20,000 gift to Oval Office operations director Walt Nauta.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for further commentary via email. In response, the White House Press Office issued a statement on X, confirming Trump’s practice of offering Christmas gifts to individuals within his circle, including both current and past employees during his tenure in government and private business. They emphasized that these gifts do not relate to the recipients’ official duties, thus are permissible under existing legal and ethical regulations.
The gifts have invited scrutiny from government ethics professionals.
Richard Painter, previous chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, noted to The Washington Post that these gifts could breach federal law, which prevents external payments from supplementing federal employees’ salaries. Painter, recognized as a critic of Trump, suggested this possibility.
On the other hand, Don Fox, a former acting director of the Office of Government Ethics under the Obama Administration, indicated the facts do not definitively signal a violation while expressing these payments could be ‘troublesome’ due to potentially indebting beneficiaries to the president.
Dave Aronberg, a Former Palm Beach State Attorney, expressed concern due to the size of these payments, highlighting that federal law generally forbids government employees from having their federal salaries supplemented by private entities, and a $45,000 gift differs from typical holiday gifts like sweaters or wine.
The crux lies in understanding the motivation behind Trump’s gifts. If these represented true holiday gifts disconnected from the recipients’ White House roles, this strengthens the defense. However, if deemed as bonuses or extra compensation for government service, this could breach the federal salary-supplementation law. Such an action could incite an ethics investigation and potential civil liabilities, possibly leading to criminal scrutiny under severe circumstances.
The attention on these gifts coincides with a growing examination of Harp’s closeness to Trump. Recent reports question her frequent presence near him and the implications of her access to the president.
As this is an evolving story, further information will be updated as available.