254 Comments
User's avatar
elvis horkheimer's avatar

How about instead of Liberation Day, call it Obliteration Day? Seems a bit more on the mark.

Expand full comment
John Biele's avatar

Obfuscation Day

Expand full comment
Robert Gustafson's avatar

Prescient name. Save that for the history books, assuming they haven’t all been burned in the next 4 years.

Expand full comment
Robert Gustafson's avatar

Cute! Albeit horrific

Expand full comment
Nathan Smith's avatar

Don't call it Liberation Day. Call it Tariffmageddon. Don't comply with the newspeak!

Expand full comment
Howard Kaplan's avatar

The resistance should mainstream its own language. Trumpcession should be added to that list.

Expand full comment
Susanna J. Sturgis's avatar

MAGAcession is another possibility.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Trump Slump.

Expand full comment
Rena's avatar

I'm liking the rhyme!

Expand full comment
David K Stevens's avatar

How about (not as catchy) "Insider trading is legal if you're my friend" day?

Expand full comment
Aubrey W Kendrick's avatar

Actually, I think that it is "anything you want to do is legal if you are a friend of Donald."

If you are a critic of Donald or a liberal or a Democrat, then virtually anything you do might be illegal and definitely needs investigation.

I think that in the future, if the Democrats find a promising candidate for high office, that person is going to be accused of possible crimes and put under investigation. Anyone, supporting the Democrats or being a critic of Donald, is going to face investigations and harassment by the DOJ or republicans in Congress.

Normal people just cannot adjust to the way MAGA, and the right wing works. They lie about everything and make things up and misrepresent on a gigantic scale. Now some at DOJ claim that they don't understand court rulings and misstate criminal cases, etc.

It is unbelievable.

Expand full comment
Stefan Paskell's avatar

You are very right that any promising Democrat is going to be slimed by professional Trumpists. What an ordeal.

On the other hand, no one doubts that in 2016 Trump was very slimy re his business irregularities, bankruptcies, and personal conduct as typified by his connections with Roy Cohn, Jeffrey Epstein, and of course the Access Hollywood recording.

There is a difference between ignoring the issues, Trump's strategy, and hyperbolic reactivity, as is the Democratic practice. Right wing spoofers jerked Democrats' strings and had Democrats eating their own in the ACORN "scandal" and Al Franken.

The proper strategy when slimed is to do what Bondi and Hegseth did in almost a reflexive action, blame someone else for something tenuously related or false: blame Biden, Blame Hillary Clinton.

What's going on now is more like the governmental equivalent of The Little Rascals making movies in Spanky's garage.

Expand full comment
NubbyShober's avatar

Hegseth primarily denied: "My top secret Signal-gate war plans that leaked were not top-secret war plans!!"

Expand full comment
Stefan Paskell's avatar

I meant to add that despite the layers of slime covering Trump, the American voter elected him, twice. Thus slime doesn't matter. What matters is reacting to it, or even paying attention to it.

Expand full comment
NubbyShober's avatar

Trump2 and the current GOP congress were put in power due to the excellent propaganda provided so generously by FOX News. Which is also why Trump still has ~90% approval among GOP voters.

Expand full comment
Donald Green's avatar

Can you say Navalny

Expand full comment
Rena's avatar

Truth. This is a group of people who suspended, then fired, a DOJ lawyer "because he told the truth in court." (That albrego garcia's deportation was an "administrative error.") Wrap your minds around that - a lawyer getting fired b/c he refused to lie to the court.

Expand full comment
Stefan Paskell's avatar

Exactly. I had bookmarked the story on MSNBC with the following:

'Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that Reuveni had been placed on leave. “At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” she said. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.” '

That's what we have to wrap our heads around: that Pam Bondi, Trumpism's AG, head of the "Justice" Department, has defined the new Americanism as a lying system. Her definition of what it is to "zealously advocate on behalf of the United States" is to lie when it suits the political purpose. This is Leo Strauss' Neocons speaking.

No, Pam, lying is not Americanism. Lying is Trumpism. Just like when we do not refer to who ran Germany from 1933 to 1945 as "Germans".

Expand full comment
Rena's avatar

Yep. They suspended - and then fired - the lawyer who told the truth about the guy that they “accidentally'“ sent to El Salvador. Oopsie, can’t have DOJ lawyers telling the truth!

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

Perhaps that could be the motto, rather than the title.

Expand full comment
Pierre Frioud's avatar

Libation Day, I have needed a drink ever since

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

We must deliberately commit thought crimes.

Expand full comment
NubbyShober's avatar

Only if they are deliciously naughty.

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

That's perfectly acceptable.

However, I was thinking more along the lines of "Down with Big Brother!".

Expand full comment
Robert Jaffee's avatar

How about Tariff-Palooza, because Trump is making tariffs great again, and the rest of us BROKE!…:)

Expand full comment
Sharon's avatar

Mar a Lago Tax...if you can afford it. Go bankrupt if you can't.

Expand full comment
Reverend George's avatar

Chassahowitzka Hunt Club 1873

New Era

In response to the new rise of Nativism/White “Christian” Nationalism (calling yourself a Christian does not make it so) that now dominates the once venerable Republican Party, the Chassahowitzka Hunt Club 1873 (The Club) is once again expanding Membership and returning to a decidedly more politically active phase. When the once venerable Union League Club of Philadelphia performed the abomination of giving its Abraham Lincoln Award to felon Donald J. Trump, the Board of CHC moved to renew our original purpose and seeks to broadly expand our Membership and efforts on behalf of the Union.

If you would like to submit your name for Membership (which is free), please email

Membership@CHC1873.

“The original Mission of the Union Leagues was to Support Abraham Lincoln and In the Articles of Association, the Club's primary objectives are to (paraphrased): encourage loyalty to the Federal Government, defend the Union, inculcate good citizenship, maintain equality of all citizens, assure the purity of the ballot, oppose corruption, and secure honesty in the administration of National, State, and Municipal affairs.” [3]: 27–28 Wikipedia

Long Term Goals:

To develop a broad “Social Membership” to promote the return to the rule of law and to encourage loyalty to the Constitution, defend the Republic, inculcate good citizenship, maintain equality of all citizens, assure the purity of the ballot, oppose corruption, and secure honesty in the administration of National, State, and Municipal affairs and elections.

History :

"Post 1867, during the Reconstruction era, Union Leagues were formed across the South as working auxiliaries of the Republican Party, supported entirely by Northern interests. They were secret organizations that mobilized freedmen to register to vote and to vote Republican. They taught freedmen Union views on political issues and which way to vote on them, and promoted civic projects.

By the end of 1867, it seemed that virtually every black voter in the South had enrolled in the Union League, the Loyal League, or some equivalent local political organization. Meetings were generally held in a black church or school."[1]

Little has been known for certain about the Chassahowitzka Hunt Club (“CHC”) or its history. As a secret society, the Club kept no written records. Lore has it that CHC was an outgrowth of a Southern Union League Club referenced above and was founded in 1873 as a men’s political, social, sporting, and hunting club. It may be seen as one of the oldest and most exclusive “Country Clubs” in the United States, although not originally a “Country Club” in today’s sense. Membership has always been and remains by invitation only.

Founding Members are said to have notably included several Irish American Union Army Officers and Generals, including President U.S. Grant and Lt. General William Tecumseh Sherman.

The Union League Clubs of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago were founded during the Civil War in 1862-1863. In part as a reaction to the anti-war “Know Nothings”. The Know Nothings were a nativist political party and movement in the United States in the mid-1850s. The Know Nothings were also originally a secret society. It was primarily an anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, anti-immigration association. (2) The Founders of both the Union League Clubs and the CHC all considered Know Nothings as traitors to the Union.

Army Generals including Lt. General William Tecumseh Sherman.

Expand full comment
Ari Zighelboim's avatar

I believe it was a joke.

Expand full comment
1d2080's avatar

If that's how it was intended, it failed.

Expand full comment
Stefan Paskell's avatar

it's a troll

Expand full comment
Rainer Dynszis's avatar

When you demand that we call April 2nd 2025 "Tariffmageddon," wouldn't that amount to just a different kind of newspeak?

Expand full comment
Robert Gustafson's avatar

Cute name, horrific policy!

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Apr 30
Expand full comment
SqueakyRat's avatar

Uh, I don't believe you. And I don't think you're Paul Krugman.

Expand full comment
Johannes Burgsteiner's avatar

The Economist called it Ruination Day. Sounds good for me!

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

Sadly perfect indeed...

Expand full comment
SqueakyRat's avatar

Title of a great song by Gillian Welch, though it's not about tariffs.

Expand full comment
Julie Varga's avatar

Thank you for illuminating the context. Safe travels

Expand full comment
Robert A Mosher (he/him)'s avatar

I think the erratic pattern of decisions is doing at least as much damage as the stupidity- businesses do not deal well with uncertainty

Expand full comment
Bruce Olsen's avatar

Don't forget: he's out to cripple the US and Europe/NATO.

Expand full comment
Sharon's avatar

Trump may ultimately be good for our allies, who have been complacent in our shadow. This will force Europe to innovate and be more creative in their defense and economy. Our formal allies can work together...as I read they are doing...and go on without us.

Sorry, liberal democracies...we've got to run to the bathroom for awhile as we've got a serious case of salmonella. I hope we recover.

Expand full comment
Paul B's avatar

Agreed. When one thinks about it, Trump is definitely more MEGA (Make Europe Great Again) than MAGA. The US is going to be provincial after some years with Agent Orange.

Expand full comment
NubbyShober's avatar

More like PIMD: Putin is my Daddy.

Expand full comment
Marie B Krallman's avatar

SUGAR Daddy.

Expand full comment
Bruce Olsen's avatar

I dont see that. He wants to damage Europe because Putin wishes it. Lack of support for Ukraine is one sign of that, as is the threat to withdraw from NATO.

Expand full comment
Paul B's avatar

Trump's Alpha and Omega is that he doesn't want to increase government spendings, he wants to cut government spendings, which is why Ukraine and NATO are pebbles in the shoe to him. Trump doesn't really care what happens outside the US, leaving the rest of the World to the wolves.

This will make Europe great again - out of plain necessity.

Expand full comment
Robert Gustafson's avatar

He’s META (Make America Terrible Again)

Expand full comment
Patrice Fletcher's avatar

Trumpanella

Expand full comment
Jennifer Trybom's avatar

Correct.

And there’s an even more sinister reason for that

Expand full comment
Bruce Olsen's avatar

Did ICE get you before you finished your thought?

Expand full comment
WinstonSmithLondonOceania's avatar

That's not necessarily a coincidence.

Expand full comment
Bruce Olsen's avatar

Yes: feature, not bug.

Expand full comment
David Clark's avatar

That was the reason he didn't place the tariffs till after. He knew this 100day mark would be in the news and didn't want those numbers included. It likely takes 6wks for items to get off a boat, through customs, shipped to distribution, shipped to store and then out on the shelf so it's not somehting that shows up right away and that's not to mention all the things that just didn't get ordered. Consider a $300 TV will now cost near $750, why order it, no one is going to buy it and why employee all those people when there is nothing to sell. Trump destroyed 1500 small farms last term with Trump Taxes, he is going to make a big dent this time.

Expand full comment
Patrice Fletcher's avatar

Cannot wait for those midterm elections. Vent that anger at the voting booth!

Expand full comment
Rena's avatar

Before that, vent your anger in the streets.

Expand full comment
Eric Swanson's avatar

Paul, I appreciate your efforts to keep up while on your bike trip. As a longtime bike tourists, I hope you will also share your itinerary after you are done!

Expand full comment
Greg Kuperberg's avatar

Maybe you can call it "Tariffation Day".

Expand full comment
Ruth Anne Leibman's avatar

Tarifflation? Liberation from our wallets?

Expand full comment
Greg Kuperberg's avatar

Liberation from mathematics, for one thing.

Expand full comment
M. Layfield's avatar

Thank you, Paul

Just a note to readers: there is a poster that goes under the alias, Paul Krugman Sub stack.

Please be careful. This individual is doling out nefarious information. He uses Paul Krugman’s same photo. I have blocked him twice, only to have him/her contact me again.

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

Blocking doesn't work. You need to report him directly to Substack, under the category "impersonation".

Expand full comment
M. Layfield's avatar

Thank you. Would you please indicate how I do it. Step by step. I feel as if I’m hacked. Not fearing it. I will simply call it out. Not running away.

Expand full comment
DK Brooklyn's avatar

next to the scam comment, click on the three dots to the right. One of the choices, the bottom one, "Report". Click on it and there are choices of what you are reporting. "Impersonation" is one of the choices. Click on it.

Expand full comment
M. Layfield's avatar

Thank you. I don’t recall seeing that specific option. I used the block feature, but received another post a couple days later. I’ll stay vigilant, and if this continues, I will draw it out each time it occurs.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

It doesn’t work on the iPhone web version. You get as far as being offered a button to push to report. But pushing the button does nothing. The cancel button doesn’t work either. You have to refresh the screen. VERY IRRITATING.

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

Sure. He's not just appearing on your screen, he's on all of our screens all the time. As DK Brooklyn began to explain: you need to click on the three dots (top right corner of each message). Then make sure to click on the blue "report to Substack" (not "report to Krugman", because it's Substack that needs to destroy these Substack accounts). Then you'll be asked to select a "reason" for blocking. Click on "impersonation" (because that account is falsely adopting someone else's identity, which is prohibited on social media). And then you'll have some space in which you can explain what exactly is going on. There you write what you wrote above, so that Substack knows why you think it's a case of impersonation. And then hit the send button.

Expand full comment
M. Layfield's avatar

Thank you. I’ve appreciated your response immensely.

I knew not a report yo Paul Krugman, these were obviously nefarious imposters. I called it out today, once I saw Mr.Krugman’s latest report.

I’ve screenshot the steps, moving beyond simply the blocking.

Thanks again, and I do hope others will respond if, and when this occurs to them.

I love our free space. Have a great day!

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

You're very welcome! We may all have to do this a few times before Substack notices it, so thanks for bringing it up in the first place! The more people report it, the better.

Have a great day too!

Expand full comment
Somewhere, Somehow's avatar

I’ve noticed it too. Submitted the comment to the Substack group but not seen anything done. So thank you for letting readers know.

Expand full comment
M. Layfield's avatar

Thank you for responding. It’s an egregious affront, especially concerning when they are imitating well respected individuals. Paul Krugman is an excellent journalist/economist.

Expand full comment
DK Brooklyn's avatar

This has been done with other substackers. You can report them as impersonation. Click on the three dots near their comment.

Expand full comment
M. Layfield's avatar

Thank you. I tried blocking them when I received the first one. Sadly, I just dumped it. On the second, I blocked it. On the third, I was unable to take any action. It makes me think my account is hacked. I will continue to monitor, and will continue to draw attention to these posts.

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

It's not personal, which is why blocking is not a solution. You need to report it instead.

Expand full comment
Science Curmudgeon's avatar

We already know who will be blamed - Biden, right? I am sure the playbook text has already been written and circulated.

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

Lately, Leavitt came up with a new variation on the same theme: when journalists ask questions about the carnage the GOP is inflicting (let's stop imagining that this is all Trump's doing; the entire GOP is complicit!), she raises her voice and asks why no one was asking similar questions when the same thing happened under Biden - only it didn't...

Expand full comment
Robert Gustafson's avatar

Trump: “INMF (It’s Never MY Fault)”

Expand full comment
Barbara Pengelly's avatar

I was in a large retail store on Sunday afternoon. the racks were full to overflowing. Everything was on sale at 65% off. No one was in the store when I entered. When I left, maybe 4 people in view. If this isn't a recession, what is. I live in Hagerstown, MD

I also have an Etsy shop (small). Business is off since the first of the year...now at least 45%. I don't sell real necessities, so I can understand that. It's still a symptom of a recession coming or already here.

My general costs in all areas have only gone UP! I'm retired with a so-so income...not rich, not poor, maybe average, but let me tell you, evenI am concerned about the way prices are going.

Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

In 2022, I didn't believe there would be a recession, at least not a deep one because oil and gas prices remained stable as a determinent of all prices. But now supplies of all other goods are threatened with excessive price increases and I'm worried about a depression. Trump is a wealthy guy with no experience paying for daily needs. He has no real comprehension of steep price increases.

Expand full comment
Rena's avatar

And, may I add, that he doesn't give a shi- about price increases that impact the hoi polloi. He just doesn't care.

Expand full comment
Juan Rivera's avatar

I call it April Fool’s 2.0 as it was on April 2

Expand full comment
Rena's avatar

I wish he hadn't done t on my son's 30th birthday. We always loved that he was born on 4/2 - as his dad was afraid he'd be born on April Fool's Day and ran around making bets to our then-co-workers that he would (be born on 4/1). He figured that of course he'd lose his bets - total superstition, but it worked.

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

Thanks! Reading this, I was wondering: how many Americans actually actively decided that they want to buy fewer imported goods in the first place? The legacy media have been so distracted by clickbait headlines and therefore Trump tweets for so long now that we never had a real "presidential" debate about tariffs in the first place. People voted for Trump assuming that he must be a great businessman, but that idea would have been easily debunked IF there had been REAL debates, rather than just one utterly weird "performance" in which "journalists" throw the most baseless tweets at one candidate (Harris), who had to refute them in under two minutes (whereas a real journalist does that himself!) while Trump was allowed to constantly distract our attention from ANY attempt to have a REAL conversation.

Any real conversation about tariffs SHOULD have started with a discussion in which Harris would be asked to explain how she, Biden and Democrats managed to bring back manufacturing (1 million new manufacturing jobs, 20 new auto plants - compared to Trump's net loss of 300,000 manufacturing jobs and 6 auto plants). That would have allowed everyone to see (finally!) her record and that she knew what she was talking about. Then Trump would have had to explain why he was so bad at manufacturing and how come that his tariff increases produced the opposite effect, and why he believed that this time something radically different would happen.

The bringing back manufacturing jobs discussion alone already should have taken at least half an hour.

Instead, we got a whopping FIFTEEN "topics" thrown at the candidates in 90 minutes, with only 2 minutes per candidate to speak, AND the utterly absurd rule, for a DEBATE, to not debate each other.

Yes, Harris totally destroyed Trump, but only for those who already knew the truth. For the 40% GOP indoctrinated Americans, the fact that Trump, the entire GOP, and their neofascist media machine immediately spinned it into a win for Trump made it impossible to ever see the truth before Nov. 5.

Today is to an important extent the result of the extremely low quality of election reporting in this country, including by all "high-quality" media.

Expand full comment
Dirk  Faegre's avatar

Note: Trump will NEVER EVER "explain why he was so bad" at ANYTHING. Ever.

He has a mantra, well learned and practiced over the decades: Never admit you're wrong and always declare victory ... no matter what. Watch him, he does it every time.

It takes a whole different way to debate Trump -- one we haven't quite figured out yet. But it does involve calling him a LOSER as that upsets him so that he totters off his game for a bit. I suspect this is because he knows he's a loser and he's desperate to keep others from seeing it.

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

Any real debate would have exposed that flaw in his approach. So no, I don't think that it takes a whole different way to debate Trump. All it needs is a REAL debate, something no one ever tried because the media forgot how to organize real debates in the first place. They've replaced it with trying to ATTACK candidates as much as possible in the hopes of exposing some kind of personal or moral flaw in their character. And each time they do so, they see it as a win.

A win for whom? you could ask. Because this utterly superficial and moralizing approach doesn't make anyone wiser and merely increases the already rampant cynicism - THE fuel any fascism needs to thrive...

Expand full comment
Rena's avatar

In any debate, Trump should've had to wear a collar that delivered an electric shock every time he lied. He would have then had literally nothing to say.

Expand full comment
Robert Gustafson's avatar

Kamala had it right the way she would just keep baiting him & getting him off-topic while staying on topic herself. Too bad she ran at an inauspicious time and didn’t have more debates.

Expand full comment
Sharon's avatar

I wish the American public would have been willing to listen to such a debate, but as it is they would have tuned out. Getting smacked in the face with political consequences may make politics more of a priority, but that's going to take some time.

Expand full comment
EUWDTB's avatar

We don't really know that, do we? And such a debate could only be organized if there is a debate CULTURE in the first place. Neofascist Bannon likes to quote anti-fascist Gramsci when he said that "culture comes first". By that he meant: people's voting behavior is the result of beliefs and behavior that is FIRST installed on a cultural level, so if you want to change their voting behavior, work on changing the culture first.

It's why I admire Pete Buttigieg (or Adam Mockler) so much, because he's basically installing a real debate culture all on his own, right now.

That being said, politicians can only do so much, when it comes to creating a new cultures. It has to be done mostly by "we the people" and then the media. Which is where Substack could play such an important role...

In the meantime, couldn't we argue that wokism was an attempt to change the culture? It was, but IMHO (and as a staunch progressive), it came itself out of a culture that had already fully abandoned any real, respectful debate habit, so it couldn't but (1) come across is violent and totalitarian and then trigger a counteraction that is equally violent and totalitarian, as we're seeing today, and (2) in the absence of real debates, its assumptions were pretty unscientific, if not anti-scientific and outright false, which is yet another reason why this could never work.

Hopefully, we on the left will now learn this painful lesson and get it right from now on. Since neofascists have taken over, however, their propaganda machines are well-oiled, so nothing guarantees that all the bad stuff that will happen to them soon won't be reinterpreted through the same brainwashing that made them stick with a fascist GOP in the first place... . So I wouldn't count on any "conversions" any time soon. Nothing will replace our sustained attempts to engage in real, friendly debates with them, over and over again... because Aristotle already showed how vital debates among citizens are when it comes to installing and maintaining a thriving democracy.

Expand full comment
nome sane?'s avatar

While it’s true that the numbskull mob boss walked us over yet another cliff with his insane tariffs 2 days after the end of the 1st quarter, could it be that most corporations, small businesses, as well as consumer sentiment writ large were anticipating that his economic idiocy would very soon be around the corner?

Especially because we were already witnessing how the world’s richest idiot was taking his chain saw in 360 degrees to every agency in sight, as if this were a tried and true approach to organizational change and proclaiming falsehood after falsehood as a justification for doing so. Meanwhile we all knew that Navarro, the mobster’s tariff loving fake-onomist was waiting in the wings to satisfy his boss’s desire to launch a global trade war.

This was probably foretold and therefore a slowdown was already under way.

Expand full comment