A hurried escape. A decoy Air Force One. A handpicked inner circle allowed to accompany President Donald Trump—and powerful advisers unexpectedly left behind without a public explanation.

Now veteran White House correspondent Maggie Haberman has offered a startling theory about why two of Trump’s closest aides made the cut during the chaotic military maneuver: The president wanted familiar people and personal comforts around him.

One of those aides, Natalie Harp, serves as Trump’s executive assistant and has become an almost constant presence at his side.

“She is sort of his binkie, for lack of a better way of putting it,” Haberman said Sunday. “[His] comfort blanket.”

The striking description came during Haberman’s appearance on MS NOW, where host Jacob Soboroff questioned her about The New York Times’ reporting on Trump’s escape involving a catering container and the staff members who were left aboard a decoy presidential aircraft.

The operation unfolded rapidly and under extreme secrecy. But even after the immediate danger passed, the White House offered little clarity about how officials determined who would travel with Trump and who would remain behind.

“We still don’t have answers as to how he picked,” Haberman said.

Then she added pointedly: “I can guess why Natalie Harp and Dan Scavino were with him.”

Some of the decisions appeared easier to understand.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s presence made tactical sense, Haberman argued, because Trump was engaged in a military operation and traveling aboard a military aircraft. Having the Pentagon’s top civilian leader nearby could be essential during a fast-moving national-security crisis.

Harp’s presence, however, apparently served a different purpose.

She has developed a reputation as one of Trump’s most loyal and trusted aides, frequently accompanying him and helping manage the constant stream of information reaching the president.

Haberman’s “binkie” comparison suggested that Harp provides something beyond ordinary administrative assistance: reassurance, familiarity and emotional comfort during moments of intense pressure.

Dan Scavino, another longtime Trump loyalist, was also among those who accompanied the president. Scavino has remained close to Trump for years, serving as a central figure in his political communications operation and social-media presence.

Then there was Walt Nauta, Trump’s personal aide.

According to Haberman, Nauta may have been brought along partly because he carries a brown leather briefcase that became familiar during Trump’s first term.

“He also always carries that brown leather briefcase,” she explained. “It had things like Tic Tacs and hairspray and all kinds of stuff.”

The detail was mundane but revealing.

During a national-security scramble involving a decoy presidential plane, some members of Trump’s traveling group may have been chosen not only because of their official responsibilities but because they supplied the routines and personal items he expects to have nearby.

Yet it was the absence of another powerful figure that captured Soboroff’s attention.

Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s most influential and ideologically aligned advisers, was reportedly left aboard the other aircraft.

“[Miller] is sort of locked at the hip with the president,” Soboroff said. “And when I heard that he left Stephen Miller back on the plane, I don’t know, my ears perked up. I don’t know what to make of it.”

Neither did Haberman.

She said available reporting suggested that the transfer was a frantic response rather than the product of a carefully prepared selection process.

“As best as we can tell from our reporting, this was a scramble,” she said.

A chaotic operation might explain why the passenger list appeared inconsistent. Officials may have made decisions in seconds based on proximity, immediate tactical requirements or simple chance.

But Haberman argued that the continuing lack of answers reflects a much larger problem: the Trump administration’s resistance to explaining itself to journalists—and, by extension, to the public.

“I understand this all happened fast,” she said, “but it speaks to the degree to which they don’t trust the media.”

“They don’t see having to tell the media things as a priority at all, or public disclosure.”

That secrecy has allowed speculation to fill the vacuum.

Why were Harp, Scavino and Nauta brought alongside Trump? Why was Miller left behind despite his extraordinary closeness to the president? Who made the final decisions, and what security protocols governed the transfer?

The White House may have legitimate reasons for withholding sensitive operational details. Revealing procedures surrounding presidential movement during a security incident could create serious risks.

But questions about who exercises influence around the president—and who remains beside him in a moment of crisis—carry unmistakable public importance.

The strange episode revealed two versions of Trump’s inner circle.

One consists of officials needed for strategy and command, such as the defense secretary.

The other is more personal: the aide Haberman called a “comfort blanket,” the longtime communications loyalist and the man carrying the familiar briefcase filled with Tic Tacs and hairspray.

In the confusion, Stephen Miller—normally “locked at the hip” with Trump—was left behind.

And until the White House explains why, the people selected during that frantic escape may reveal more about the president’s private dependencies than any official statement ever could.