President Donald Trump awarded cash gifts totaling $45,000 each to three of his close White House aides, according to recently released financial disclosure forms. The payments, described by recipients as “Cash Gift for Holidays,” represent roughly one-third of their annual White House salaries, which are approximately $150,000 each, based on an annual report to Congress.

The three recipients include Natalie Harp, Trump’s executive assistant; Margo Martin, a communications adviser; and Chamberlain Harris, also an executive assistant. Harp, 35, is known within the White House as the “human printer” for frequently providing Trump with physical copies of news and social media content. She has attracted increased scrutiny after reports detailed her role in a covert plane transfer operation in Turkey to evade a potential assassination threat. Martin, 31, often films Trump’s daily activities for social media and reportedly has access that occasionally surpasses even that of the Secret Service. Harris, 26, previously known as the “receptionist of the United States” during Trump’s first term, was also appointed by Trump earlier this year to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, overseeing the White House ballroom and related Washington-area projects.

In a separate disclosure, Walt Nauta, the director of Oval Office operations, reported receiving a $20,000 cash gift from Trump. Nauta, who earns $175,000 annually, was one of the aides who accompanied Trump during the secretive plane swap in Turkey. He has served as a valet, or “body man,” for Trump, a role that involves close daily assistance, and was a central figure and co-defendant in the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The charges against Nauta were dismissed in 2024 over procedural issues related to the special counsel’s appointment.

Experts in government ethics expressed concerns over the legality and propriety of these gifts. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, argued that the payments could violate federal law prohibiting supplemental compensation to federal employees from outside sources. He described the gifts as a way to financially assist aides working in government, which is prohibited by statute. Painter also noted that both the payer and the recipient could be held liable under the law. He emphasized that government employees should not expect large personal gratuities, likening the gifts to improper “tipping” inconsistent with public service standards.

A White House spokesperson defended the gifts, stating that President Trump has a tradition of giving holiday cash gifts to those in his personal and professional sphere, including employees both in government and private sector roles. The spokesperson maintained that these gifts were unrelated to official duties and fully compliant with applicable laws and ethical standards.

Don Fox, a former acting director of the Office of Government Ethics during the Obama administration, said it was unclear whether the gifts constituted illegal supplementation. He noted that such payments are rare and not anticipated by existing rules. While acknowledging the payments might not breach legal prohibitions, Fox described the large gifts as “troublesome” because they could induce a sense of personal obligation from recipients to the president.

The aides who received the gifts are part of a small cadre closely affiliated with Trump, many of whom have longstanding ties to him dating back to his first presidential term and the period when he was out of office. Their careers have been largely intertwined with Trump’s political and personal endeavors. Harp, Martin, Harris, and Nauta each attested on their disclosures to having no significant additional income or spousal employment that might offset their government salaries.

The emergence of these substantial cash gifts to White House employees is notable, as large supplemental payments from a high-ranking official to subordinates in the federal government are highly unusual and raise questions about ethics and legal compliance. Federal rules on gifts to government employees are designed to maintain impartiality and prevent undue influence, though enforcement in this case remains uncertain.