"Though Musk is unpredictable, he is also a formidable ally. With his nearly unlimited resources and unmatched digital megaphone..."

"... Musk could prove a powerful asset to the MAGA movement once Trump leaves the stage. Vance in particular stands to benefit. Though the falling out between Trump and Musk dominated the headlines, Vance’s role in the reunion highlights his own relationship with the billionaire. He talks regularly with Musk, who sees Vance as a viable 2028 candidate.... Musk and Vance, a former Silicon Valley investor, share not just a tech-infused worldview but a fondness for online performance — especially on Musk’s social media platform, X, where Vance has embraced a sharp, 'own-the-libs' style that can mirror Musk’s own taste for provocation. Their alliance could further entrench the influence of tech titans in the White House, extending the authority of private entrepreneurs."

From "How Vance brokered a truce between Trump and Musk/JD Vance played a key role brokering a reconciliation between the president and his wealthiest supporter. But as Trump’s first year in office comes to a close, both he and his allies have learned hard lessons about Musk’s unusual influence" (WaPo)(gift link).

That seems pretty important, and WaPo — fighting darkness for the sake of democracy — put it at the top of the front page, right alongside a dubious headline about the spread of "The epidemic of toxic flattery:

I can do without the disease metaphor — "epidemic," "spreading" — because I don't think the problem of flattery — whatever it is — is going to need anything analogous to masks, vaccinations, and staying at home. And what is "toxic" about flattery?

As promised, I read the transcript of the January 28th phone conversation between Trump and the Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Trumbull.

I don't approve of the publication of these transcripts, but since they are out there, I wanted to be sure I knew what was in them so that I wouldn't be affected by distortions in what is and isn't reported elsewhere. My discussion of the conversation between Trump and the Mexican President is here. So now let's look at the conversation with Turnbull, which is all about the agreement President Obama made with respect to refuges held in prisons on Nauru and Manus Island after they attempted to enter Australia by boat.

As Turnbull makes clear, Australia has a hardcore policy rejecting anyone who arrives by boat. As Trump makes clear, he hates the agreement but feels compelled to follow it. Turnbull attempts to persuade Trump to see that it's a deal that Trump himself should want to endorse, and Trump seems irritated that Turnbull would even attempt to sell that to him. So Turnbull switches to arguing that the deal really isn't so bad. This rubs Trump the wrong way, and even without audio, I hear Trump displaying anger at Turnbull for not just admitting it's a crappy deal and being thankful that the deal will be followed. Maybe Trump is putting on a show. I can't tell. But Trump is demonstrative and Turnbull seems (in writing, at least) to keep his cool while pushing the points that are obviously irking Trump. It's not a good relationship.

That's my quick take. Click for my 14-point summary with quotes.

New word learned today: "gazump."

I was reading "Malcolm Turnbull's approach vindicated by President Donald Trump's madness" in The Sydney Morning Herald:

Malcolm Turnbull, who has spent much of this week defending government secrecy over his phone conversation with Donald Trump, has just been done a favour by the forces of media scrutiny and public accountability.

On the surface, this is just another SNAFU - another uncontrolled leak that has gazumped the Prime Minister's agenda, right when he wants to talk about tax cuts, cheaper electricity, and affordable childcare.

The (unlinkable) OED says the slang word means to swindle, and traces it back to 1928:

1928   Daily Express 19 Dec. 2/7   ‘Gazoomphing the sarker’ is a method of parting a rich man from his money. An article is auctioned over and over again, and the money bid each time is added to it.

The spelling "gazump" arrives in 1971, and there's also "gasumph," "gezumph."

But wait, here's a blog post by that goes into much more detail: "Gazip, Gazipe, Gazump - Variants of Gazabo?" It looks at an earlier American word, "gazump," from 1910, that referred to an old automobile.

"The potential unraveling of a refugee pact between the U.S. and Australia that President Donald Trump blasted as 'dumb'..."

"... threatens to strain ties between the longtime allies amid China’s push to extend its sway in the Pacific region," writes Rob Taylor in the WSJ.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had been counting on the Obama-era deal to close off one of his government’s biggest flashpoints and resolve the fate of 1,250 refugees stranded in two Australian-backed camps in the Pacific, which for years have drawn criticism from rights groups and the United Nations over their conditions. Instead Mr. Turnbull found himself clashing with Mr. Trump in a weekend phone call, according to people familiar with the talks.

In a Twitter post Thursday, Mr. Trump suggested he could back out of the deal, which was reached in November. “Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!” the post read....

Asked if there was a “Plan B” if Mr. Trump backed out, Mr. Turnbull said his government was still working on agreements with other unspecified nations, but Australia wouldn’t back down on its border-security laws, which bar asylum seekers arriving by boat from settling in the country.

“Our expectation naturally, given the commitments that have been made, is that it will go ahead,” he said. “The only option that isn’t available to [the refugees] is bringing them to Australia for the obvious reasons that that would provide a signal to the people smugglers to get back into business.”

So, Australia refuses to take in the refugees and absolutely must stick to its position so it won't incentivize more migration. But it does desperately want to move the refugees somewhere else that they'd presumably like as much as Australia. Doesn't that call into question the cited reason for excluding them? If the real reason is the concern that some of them are dangerous, it's the same reason Trump and the Americans who agree with him don't want to let them in here without "extreme vetting."