511 Comments
User's avatar
Noel Siksai's avatar

Sanctum excrementum!

Expand full comment
Kathleen Weber's avatar

Also, sancta merda!

Expand full comment
Raul Ramos y Sanchez's avatar

Many of us have been saying this all along: Trump's tariffs are illegal. It took a while for a group injured by the tariffs to challenge this executive overreach in court. The questions now are:

Will Trump continue to blatantly violate the Constitution if the Supreme Court rules against him?

Will the US court system deploy the US Marshall Service to enforce the law if Trump refuses?

Will the Secret Service allow the president to be arrested?

Did anyone ever dream a US president would drag the dignify of our nation down to this?

Expand full comment
sallie reynolds's avatar

Yes. No. No. Yes.

Expand full comment
Dick Montagne's avatar

Maybe

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29Edited
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Damn brain fog spam bot just won't die.

Reported: for the millionth time.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

I saw a comment Tuesday evening that was typical. When I looked at it again a few minutes later, it was this brain fog garbage. It was also flagged as "edited." I think someone's managed to figure out a way to edit other people's comments.

Expand full comment
Chief of Spaff's avatar

take that fog ans shove it where the sancta merda comes from.

Expand full comment
Bern's avatar

geez...a warning next time howza bout it?

Expand full comment
RCThweatt's avatar

Ok, I'm back in. Feel a bit chagrined about missing out on the "Taco Trade". Lawrence O'Donnell did call it.

If anyone wonders what SCOTUS will do-

1. Federal Judiciary knows it's under threat. It has to decisively curb Trump to protect itself. What better issue than this?

2. One of these lawsuits is backed by none other than Leonard Leo. Donald thinks the Justices are his, but they're Leo's.

I don't welcome the cred SCOTUS will gain out of this.

Expand full comment
Andy's avatar

It was obviusly illegal months ago. What took so fucking long? The courts should have put an injunction against this on day one when congress went along with the bullshit. We have to fix our political system so badly.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

The courts are dependent on a case being brought before them.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

And the plaintiff must have been injured by the act. So, the tariffs must go into effect long enough to cause damage to some person or persons powerful enough to initiate a suit.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

That's already happened. Just look at the stock market gyrations in response to the tariffs, not to mention all the insider trading - including by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greenbacks

Expand full comment
Scott M's avatar

I believe that this decision can be appealed to SCOTUS so the fun will continue…..suspect they will find a way to let the tariffs stand

Expand full comment
RCThweatt's avatar

I don't. One of these lawsuits is backed by Charles Koch and, wait for it, Leonard Leo.

The Federal Judiciary knows it has to decisively curb Trump, or he will destroy it. What better issue than this?

Leonard Leo wants Trump to be his instrument, not the other way round. And it's his court, not Trump's.

Expand full comment
JDinTX's avatar

Lordy, did the dog catch the car….

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

👆🎯

Expand full comment
Andy's avatar

Leo can't control Trump, but he doesn't need to. The longer Trump keeps the spotlight on him the easier it is for Leo to continue gutting the federal government from the inside. Musk and Trump are distractions, he is the real man to be worried about.

Expand full comment
Steve Zalewski's avatar

Nooooooooo

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Said Mr. Bill.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

How can trump slime 'blatantly violate' a document (the Constitution) he has never read or could understand if he had it read to him. Face the facts: president in name only, donald duck trump slime, is a very spoiled three year old residing in the overweight body of a demented old man

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

He's spent his whole life violating the law - by simply ignoring it - and getting away with it.

Expand full comment
Rv's avatar

SCOTUS "enforces" laws by ensuring their constitutionality and by providing the definitive interpretation of their meaning. The actual physical enforcement of those laws, as interpreted by the Court, falls to the executive branch.

Expand full comment
Matt Gregg's avatar

Are you certain a president can legally be arrested while still in office?

While The Constitution absolutely does not offer Presidents immunity after they leave office for acts committed during office, despite what the Republican justices say, I think it does confer immunity while still in office.

Expand full comment
Christine's avatar

Not in 5 months. The enabling by the elected Republicans is astounding. If a Democratic president tried any of this , he would have been impeached by now. None of the know -absolutely-nothing members of the Cabinet would not be approved. None of this would have happened and we and they know it.

This is all Heritage Foundation Vought and Miller who should be sent to concentration camps in El Salvador.

Expand full comment
Rob Nelson's avatar

Who in the GOP supports the stupid tariffs? We publish that list and pursue them to help the Blue team win big at midterms.

Expand full comment
Ben Smyth's avatar

Words are still legal. So far.

Expand full comment
Joe Zeigler's avatar

I used to be a proud U.S. citizen and now I'm not. Although we faced difficulties, I believed the nation was advancing. Then, unexpectedly, Trump's supporters appeared, as if from another planet.

JosephZeigler.substack.com

Expand full comment
Michael Shapiro's avatar

Sancta kaka?

Expand full comment
Rainer Dynszis's avatar

Seriously, yes! Which is better? I guess it depends on what you're trying to say.

"Sancta merda" is arguably closer to the intended meaning of the expression "holy shit", while "sanctum excrementum" might be what they called the literal holy shit that was once preserved in the monastery of Gräfrath in Germany: excrement that was purportedly produced by the donkey that carried Jesus on palm sunday.

Expand full comment
Mary Maguire's avatar

or sanctus faeces

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
leave my name off's avatar

Imposter! Do you think you can actually troll and not be caught?!

Expand full comment
Norman Zamcheck's avatar

yeah who says SCROTUS won’t let him get away with everything? They already made him King.

Expand full comment
Gina's avatar

we can hope...and enjoy in the meantime (the ketchup must be flying)

Expand full comment
Mark Folsom's avatar

salsa de tomate voladora

Expand full comment
TCinLA's avatar

This court of trade is highly respected as the final experts on the subject. That they declared everything null and void in a decision written for SCOTUS leads me to think this will be pretty solid when it gets there. More solid than any of the Trumpscum BS will be.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

That's assuming an uncorrupted SCOTUS.

Expand full comment
Susan Hofstader's avatar

Funny thing, I never heard of this court—I did go to law school 30 years ago but never practiced, still, thought we covered all the federal courts in class. Anyway, an appeals court has already put this on hold….the roller coaster ride goes on.

Expand full comment
Ryan Collay's avatar

No balls in that scrotum…the first wife had them removed…and you have to explain the parentage some other way.

Expand full comment
Mark Folsom's avatar

I've heard of this thing called a cuckold...

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

That is Roger Stone's fetish.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

My thoughts exactly.

Expand full comment
Harlan Russell Green's avatar

Thank you, Professor Krugman, can’t wait to hear more from you after your morning coffee!

Expand full comment
John Gregory's avatar

not -ta, surely, with a neuter noun like excrementum...

Expand full comment
Noel Siksai's avatar

Fixed it! I haven't used Latin since 8th grade--over 50 years ago.

Expand full comment
Martha Ture's avatar

Sanctus cacas.

Expand full comment
Thomas Wood's avatar

Romanes eunt Domus

Expand full comment
Cynthia Wolfe's avatar

O stercus felicem! (1) Noun before adjective in Latin, as with Italian, Spanish, French, and the other Romance languages derived from Latin. (2) Accusative case is exclamatory (like "Me miserum!", "Poor me!") but stercus is a neuter like corpus so the same form as nominative. (3) "Excrementum sanctum" more likely in Church Latin, unlikely in Classical Latin. Excrementum is polite, like for Pliny or Cicero; more like English feces. Catullus would be the one to give us the goods, but he's more likely to speak of number one than number two. Merda is very infrequent in Classical writers. Stercus (manure, including human waste) is common to derogate something filthy or crappy. (4) The Romans would be unlikely to use sanctus in this usage; it had a more technical religious meaning. Felix is "blessed, happy" as brought about by the gods, especially regarding manure. Romans would like the humor of something filthy being a gift from the gods and making the crops grow. They even had a minor god Stercutus, the manurer. Sign me, unapologetic geek.

Expand full comment
Noel Siksai's avatar

Like I said in an earlier comment, I haven’t used Latin since 8th grade in 1971. And in those days we recited “Latin is a dead language, dead as dead can be. First it killed the Romans, now it’s killing me!”

Expand full comment
JB's avatar

Now that’s what I call vulgar Latin!

Expand full comment
Stuart Levine's avatar

According to Google Translate it's: Sanctus Cacas

Expand full comment
beowulf888's avatar

I think they actually would've said "Mehercule!"

Expand full comment
Brian Daly's avatar

Stercus sanctus! applies as well.

Expand full comment
Noel Siksai's avatar

I’m adding the 4 other languages I speak just for fun:

ES: ¡Mierda santa!

FR: Putain de merde!

DE: Heilige Scheiße!

HU: Szent ég!

I think I’m partial to the French for obvious reasons.

Expand full comment
Dale March's avatar

Translated loosely: “We have a poop!”

Expand full comment
Rosemary Silva's avatar

Habemus poopam!

Expand full comment
Sandra Gill's avatar

Execrementitiously in the English adverb, nonexistent in the Latin…

Expand full comment
elm's avatar

I would go with sacrus stercus! Which translates exactly, and it's shorter.

elm

doing my latin review currently

Expand full comment
Ellen's avatar

Since stercus rhymes with circus...just begging for a limerick.

Any good writers here?

Expand full comment
elm's avatar

I made a mistake there - that should've been sacrum stercus. That said, I think merda works better, and the gender switch should make it sacra merda. Pretty close to close what it would be in français.

elm

and only ten letters!

Expand full comment
R D Noisemaker's avatar

Brilliant! I might use that in one of my cartoons if it's OK with you.

(Sample: https://meatlocker.substack.com/p/the-lockemup-shrike)

Expand full comment
Noel Siksai's avatar

Yeah that’s fine.

Expand full comment
Conor Ryan's avatar

That's wonderful! I'll make sure to remember this one. A total keeper.

Expand full comment
Ms. Billie M. Spaight's avatar

This is really good.

Expand full comment
Leslie Goodman-Malamuth's avatar

Best headline of the day, Mr. Krugman! Sleep well.

Expand full comment
Rikeijin's avatar

Tariffs imposed under Section 232 have not been blocked by the courts. A wide range of products may still be affected, including semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.

https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2025/05/27/trump-2-0-tariff-tracker/

"Commerce released two Federal Register notices about newly initiated Section 232 investigations into imports of (1) pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical ingredients, and derivative products and (2) semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and derivative products. "

Additional Information:

The court order can be accessed here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.56.0.pdf

The court announced that “within 10 calendar days necessary administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction shall issue.”

This means that Trump has 10 days to seek intervention from a higher court.

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

I can see steel, maybe. But do we have the resources to increase production of aluminum? I looked and we certainly don't have much native bauxite; what we have is pretty much mined out.

Expand full comment
Charles Osborne's avatar

Besides, all our "excess" electricity is headed for bit coin mining and AI farms.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

The limitation with aluminum is the amount of energy required to smelt it. There’s an aluminum smelter in northern BC (Canada). It has its own dam (lots of hydropower here.)

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Bigd54's avatar

I refer to him as Herr Pumpkinfuhrer!!

Expand full comment
Kathleen McCroskey's avatar

Agent Orange - burning down the whole f-g country.

Expand full comment
chris lemon's avatar

Cheeto Jesus captures the cultlike veneration.

Expand full comment
Daniel Doyle's avatar

Great yahoo!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Leslie Goodman-Malamuth's avatar

Trump will assume the Elvis position soon in front of the crapper in the Mar-a-Lago document room. MAGA dies with him. Rizz-free JD cannot lead.

Expand full comment
Pete Shanks's avatar

4 more? Surely 8 (at least).

Expand full comment
ISeeWhatYouDidThere's avatar

Prof Krugman said about trade rules "But I guess I just assumed that things like that didn’t matter anymore."

We could all learn that the bad guys want us to despair instead of remaining in uncertainty when we don't know the answer yet.

Expand full comment
Alan McCall's avatar

The court held the 1977 law, called IEEPA, gave no authority to the president to levy tariffs. Article I of the constitution gives Congress the taxing authority unless they delegate it. But the court found that IEEPA doesn’t delegate it to the president except in a national emergency and the Trump admin failed to show that there is one. All three judges agreed.

Expand full comment
Old Uncle Dave's avatar

Yep. Trump says the trade deficit is an emergency, but the law says an emergency can be triggered *only* by an "unusual and extraordinary threat." The U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years, making it quite usual and ordinary.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

Lots of MAGA think a trade deficit is a massive problem. Someone is ripping us off!

Expand full comment
Old Uncle Dave's avatar

Members of cults don't think. They believe whatever the leader wants them to believe.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

Right.

Expand full comment
John L's avatar

If MAGAts don't like the trade deficit, they should stop shopping.

Expand full comment
Bern's avatar

We are spending alla that money because we HAVE alla that money!

Sheesh.

Expand full comment
Ff's avatar

Sounds basic law 101.

Expand full comment
PipandJoe's avatar

In addition, the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act primarily concerns trade embargoes and sanctions and does not even mention tariffs according to the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/business/trump-tariffs-blocked-federal-court.html

So, not only no emergency, but Trump is using a rather novel interpretation, as well.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Bigd54's avatar

Trump’s team is working on that..

Expand full comment
Steve Brant's avatar

Thank you for this... but also thank you for going after the Crypto Currency (isn't it really a Ponzi Scheme?) that Trump, Peter Thiel, et al are trying to get passed by a sickeningly compliant Congress. The US economy being turned into something whose foundation is a BS kind of "money" is as bad an historical event as I can image... other than the Wall Street collapse of 1929.

Expand full comment
J. Butler's avatar

The late, great Charlie Munger declared that crypto is sh*t. And if you're buying crypto, you're buying a bag of sh*t (or words to that effect). Good advice.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

Tariffs recede, now all worry can focus on crypto.

Expand full comment
Bern's avatar

Trump Got Clipto!

Next: The Crypto!!

Expand full comment
John L's avatar

Gold is going UP, of course!

Expand full comment
M3333's avatar

The Orange Idiot is such a disaster!!!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
JesseBesse's avatar

Russian bot alert. Get a life Vlad

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

It's nice of them to self identify so we can break out the troll-be-gone!

Expand full comment
gmrossjr@msn.com's avatar

Good morning Ms Baker. Your response to current events is surprising, watch your real estate portfolio crash in the next short few months. You’ll be broke in no time.

Open your eyes dear!

Expand full comment
Rob Rains's avatar

You mean that “liberation day” WASNT a reaction to a threat to our national security?

Expand full comment
Dan Clarke's avatar

It would be nice if the tariffs paid by people and small businesses gets refunded.. is that possible?

Expand full comment
Barbara's avatar

I believe that the money must be refunded. A lot of small business owners must be relieved tonight.

Expand full comment
Bigd54's avatar

I don't see why not. If they have the paperwork and the government has the cash.

Expand full comment
Barbara's avatar

Unfortunately, the government made an emergency appeal and the appeals court judge stayed the lower court's order, so now everything waits until the case is heard at the appeals level.

Expand full comment
John L's avatar

Sure! Whatever you like! The fed can just print all the money we need for tariff refunds! Easy peasy!

Expand full comment
Michael Brooke's avatar

Well, it's not easy peasy, but it would appear to be legal wegal. If the tariffs were illegal from the start, as has just been ruled, then refunds must surely be compulsory if the beneficiaries of the tariffs aren't going to be effectively profiting from crime.

Expand full comment
Matt Gregg's avatar

Maybe they'll have to scrap that tax cut for the wealthy.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

Dream on.

Expand full comment
Ryan Collay's avatar

Complete clusterfuck of a captain, as he crashes the ship to collect the insurance we paid for! My god the GOP Congress has allowed him to have screwed the entire world with their stupidity and the media yawns…time to fire the lot!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
May 29
Comment removed
Expand full comment
John L's avatar

Willis Allen real estate in La Jolla, CA supports Trump? Asking for a friend.

Expand full comment
gmrossjr@msn.com's avatar

Ha Ha

Expand full comment
Snarkus Aurelius's avatar

Sanctus defecatum? 🤔

Expand full comment
Robert Emmett Dolan's avatar

Sancti defectata?

Expand full comment
Moshe Koval's avatar

"During a May 13 hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, argued that Trump's purported emergency to justify the tariffs is far short of what is required under the law.

"I'm asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike; you're asking me, well, where's the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?" Schwab argued. "I'm saying it's a wild pitch and it's on the other side of the batter and hits the backstop, so we don't need to debate that.""

Amazing.

Expand full comment
Brigitta Mueller's avatar

Sanctus crappus

Expand full comment
HealthHertz's avatar

Forgive my lack of Latin as well, but . . . Stuff (shall we say) is maybe about to get a whole other level of real here, no?

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

Merda ventilatorem percussit!

Expand full comment
James Petrie's avatar

Sanctus cacas

Expand full comment
Jfiora's avatar

Sacre Merde?

Expand full comment
Paula RB's avatar

😂

Expand full comment
Ryan Collay's avatar

After he made millions or billions of dollars rigging the stock market.

Expand full comment
Mark Lans Frydenborg's avatar

Sanctus Merda !

Expand full comment
Marcello Mancuso's avatar

Sancta stercore. But merda would do as well.

Expand full comment