White House defends President Donald Trump’s $45,000 gift to top aide Natalie Harp, says it was a ‘cash gift for the holidays’ and ‘entirely permissible’ under federal law
President Donald Trump recently made headlines due to his decision to give $45,000 in cash to Natalie Harp, one of his closest aides, describing the payment as a personal holiday gift. Harp disclosed the payment in her annual financial disclosure report as a “cash gift for the holidays” from Trump. While the White House defended Trump’s gift as “entirely permissible” under applicable legal and ethical standards, the revelation has nevertheless raised questions among ethics experts about whether such large payments to federal employees could violate restrictions on salary supplementation.
White House calls payments personal gifts
Harp, who serves as Trump’s special executive assistant, was one of three White House employees who disclosed receiving $45,000 from the president. Communications adviser Margo Martin and Chamberlain Harris, the deputy director of Oval Office Operations, also reported receiving the same amount, while Oval Office Operations Director Walt Nauta disclosed a $20,000 gift.
The cash “gifts” came in addition to the aides’ government salaries. Harp, Martin and Harris each earn $150,000 annually, while Nauta earns $175,000, according to White House salary disclosures.
In a statement posted on Tuesday, September 8, the White House Press Office said Trump has “a longstanding practice of giving Christmas gifts to people in his orbit,” including employees and aides both during his time in government and the private sector. The administration said the gifts “have nothing to do with any of these individuals’ official government duties” and are therefore “entirely permissible” under relevant legal and ethical standards.
Ethics experts question the unusually large gifts
The payments have nonetheless drawn scrutiny from government ethics experts. Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush and is a prominent Trump critic, told The Washington Post that the gifts could violate a federal law prohibiting outside payments from supplementing the salaries of federal employees.
Don Fox, a former acting director of the Office of Government Ethics during the Obama administration, said the available facts do not clearly establish a violation. However, he described the payments as “troublesome” because recipients could potentially feel indebted to the president.
Former Palm Beach State Attorney Dave Aronberg told Newsweek Tuesday night, “The sheer size of these payments raises a legitimate ethics and legal question. Federal law generally prohibits a government employee from having his or her federal salary supplemented by a private source, and $45,000 is a lot different from giving someone a Christmas sweater or a bottle of wine.”
Legal questions hinge on President Donald Trump’s purpose behind the gifts
Aronberg further said the circumstances surrounding the gifts would be critical to determining whether they violate federal law.
“The critical question would be why President Trump gave them the money. If these were genuinely personal holiday gifts unrelated to their White House work, that is a much stronger defense. But if the money was effectively a bonus or additional compensation for their government service, it could implicate the federal salary-supplementation law, which applies to both receiving and paying prohibited compensation. That could potentially lead to an ethics investigation, civil penalties and, in a sufficiently serious case and in a different time, criminal scrutiny,” he said.
The White House’s defense of Trump’s decision rests on the assertion that the payments were personal gifts unrelated to the recipients’ official duties.
Natalie Harp remains under increasing scrutiny
The disclosure of the rather exorbitant gifts comes as Harp’s close proximity to Trump has attracted growing attention. In August, Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff criticized Trump over his relationship with Harp, accusing him of preferring to “travel with Natalie” over governing the country. At a rally on August 16, Ossoff discussed the Iran war and how sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln are carrying out dangerous duties while the president remains focused elsewhere. He also took a dig at the new primo Air Force One gifted by Qatar, calling it “defenseless.”
“He golfs and trades stocks. See, 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,” Ossoff said at the time.