Connect with us

News

The joy of weeping

Published

on

The joy of weeping

Stay informed with free updates

Over drinks at the end of a frantic work month, an American friend reflected on a schedule that had seen her weeks away from home. Her diary, she told me, had packed in dozens of meetings, dinners and early starts to follow: she had been on best behaviour for a month. At that point, she was tired, overwrought and fully over it. “I just need to go home,” she concluded. “I need to get on a plane, hug my people and have a good cry and it will all be good.”

As luck would have it, a good cry has been an easy fix. Last week, Ariana Grande dropped Eternal Sunshine, a “concept record” that covers the singer’s divorce from Dalton Gomez and emotional journey as she experiences her Saturn return (which, as well you all know, is a cycle of 29 years). Pitchfork describes Eternal Sunshine as an “emotionally generous collection of music that cycles compassionately through the collapse of one relationship and into the hopeful beginning of another”. It’s also got some banging tunes. In particular, for those who crave the pure emotional release offered by a pop song, “We Can’t Be Friends” is the perfect hit. Heartbreak? The folly of a post-relationship friendship? The bittersweet pain of moving on? Ariana’s got it covered. I’ve been listening to it on repeat. 

I love a good cry. And pop songs are a marvellous placebo for dealing with emotional issues you can’t quite be arsed to face. Why dwell on the superficiality of your existence, your lack of societal contribution or the tragedies of global conflict when you can simply play a song that makes you bawl?

Advertisement

I have a playlist ready for occasions when I feel overwhelmed: I like to channel the spirit of Holly Hunter, the news producer in Broadcast News, who sobs hysterically for precise two-minute episodes before going back to work. 

In real life, I have a very low tolerance for crying: office weeping in particular is a red flag. Rather than shedding tears as an expression of empathy and understanding, I prefer my weeping to be solitary, brisk and ideally exercised in contexts that do not affect me personally — such as while watching documentaries, Crufts, or seeing old men dine alone. 

No one has ever really cracked the code of why humans cry, nor the point of tears. Charles Darwin considered emotional tears as being “purposeless”, and there remains little consensus about their meaning even now. I’m quite fond of the theory, popularised by Dr William H Frey, a self-appointed “student of psychogenic lacrimation”, who concluded in the early 1980s that crying removes toxins that we build up in times of stress. But this theory hasn’t found huge traction within the scientific community, most of which is still unsure about the health benefits of a big blub. 

Clinical psychologist Ad Vingerhoets is a crying expert. The author of the 2013 book Why Only Humans Weep, he has given a TED talk on the subject and has a website on which he shares his thoughts. “Rather than sadness,” he writes, “investigators agree that the key antecedents to crying are helplessness, hopelessness, and the lack of adequate behavioral responses to a problem situation. In addition, there is loss or separation from loved ones. Deaths, divorces, and homesickness are among the most important triggers of crying.”

Even he, however, is unclear about the benefits of crying. He was surprised, for example, to find that only 50 per cent of respondents [to his study about weeping] reported an improved mood following a cry. He concludes that “how people feel after crying is predominantly determined by how observers respond”.

Advertisement
Shirley MacLaine in 1983’s ‘Terms of Endearment’ — ‘still my all-time favourite blub go-to’ © Alamy

I have no desire to share my tears in public. Or for others to share theirs. Perhaps I am marked by that stiff-lipped culture that still sees crying as something that should be shamed. My grandmother lost almost every member of her family and yet I never, ever saw her shed a tear. But maybe she too had a secret playlist to convulse to, quietly, in some darkened room?

Weeping is a wonderful tonic, some weird alchemy of humours that the body must expel. It’s surely why so many people weep uncontrollably on long-haul flights while watching appalling films. Cocooned at 30,000ft, amid total strangers, one is unencumbered by the proprieties one might feel on the ground. You can bawl your way through mawkish romcoms, such as PS I Love You or Terms of Endearment (still a classic and still my all-time favourite blub go-to).

In no way are these moments social, nor do we seek observers to validate our tears. But, man, it feels good to shed them. Spotify, play Ariana Grande please.

Email Jo at jo.ellison@ft.com

Find out about our latest stories first — follow @FTWeekend on Instagram and X, and subscribe to our podcast Life & Art wherever you listen

Advertisement

News

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Published

on

Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

transcript

transcript

Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”

Advertisement
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.

By Julie Yoon

June 24, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

Published

on

Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations

A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.

Morgan Lee/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Morgan Lee/AP

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

Advertisement

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.

Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Advertisement

Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.

Continue Reading

News

ODNI under Pulte fires 6 staff, sends 45 back to home agencies

Published

on

ODNI under Pulte fires 6 staff, sends 45 back to home agencies

Just over 50 career and political intelligence staff at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have been removed from their roles since Bill Pulte became the agency’s acting director, Friday.

Six career and political intelligence staff were terminated and 45 were sent back to their home agencies, according to three sources familiar with the personnel moves.

Pulte has been asking deputies and other directors for suggestions about cuts. Some of the ODNI deputies pushed for more cuts, but Pulte said that the 51 was enough for now, one of the sources said.

One source characterized the cuts as thoughtful and methodical. No staffers have been removed from the counterterrorism group.

No further firings are planned for now, two of the sources said.

Advertisement

The cuts follow hundreds of staff reductions last year by former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who stepped down last week. Last year’s planned downsizing sought to bring the office’s headcount from 2,000 to around 1,300.

President Trump has pushed for further cuts, directing Pulte to “execute the immediate and needed downsizing of the office” in a Truth Social post earlier this month.

The office is charged with overseeing the country’s intelligence agencies and helping them coordinate with each other. It was created in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which investigators widely believe was preceded by a failure of intelligence agencies to share information. 

Since then, Gabbard and some lawmakers have argued the ODNI has become bloated and has added more bureaucracy to the intelligence community — worsening a problem it was created in part to resolve. 

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said earlier this month the office has “grown far beyond its original mandate.”  Many of the office’s staff hail from other intelligence agencies but have been detailed to ODNI, and Cotton argued large numbers of them should be returned to their “home agencies.”

Advertisement

Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, warned Pulte against making large-scale staff cuts, calling it an inappropriate course of action for an acting official without national security experience.

“While there is room to consider responsible reductions to ODNI’s workforce, any large cuts would follow on a substantial downsizing that has already occurred in 2025 and risk jeopardizing the mission of an organization explicitly created after 9/11 to prevent any future such terrorist attack,” the two Democrats wrote in a joint statement.

After Gabbard announced in May that she would resign from the post, Mr. Trump said he would install Pulte, a housing finance official, as acting director of national intelligence. He later nominated Jay Clayton, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, to serve as Senate-confirmed director.

Mr. Trump’s pick for acting director of national intelligence, who assumed the role on Friday, has sparked intense pushback in Congress. Democrats, and some Republicans, questioned the selection due to his lack of national security experience. 

Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado said Sunday he’s worried that “Americans are at risk” with Pulte serving as DNI “because we have someone who’s incompetent at the head of this agency,” in an interview on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

Advertisement

In addition to Pulte’s lack of national security experience, Democrats have railed against the pick for his role in investigations into Mr. Trump’s political foes. Crow, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, said he’s “obviously concerned that this is somebody who’s a political attack dog, and his single biggest qualification is that he’s loyal to Donald Trump and is willing to go after Donald Trump’s enemies.” But he said more immediately, he’s concerned about Americans’ safety.

“This is a really important position. This sits atop our intelligence agencies, and by law, Congress mandated that this person have significant intelligence experience because they have to make sure that we’re keeping Americans safe, which is not what Bill Pulte is capable of doing,” Crow said. 

Since Pulte’s selection, Democrats have declined to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on overseas targets, causing the legal provision to expire earlier this month

And as Senate GOP leaders tried to bring an end to the impasse by moving to quickly confirm Clayton as permanent director of national intelligence, the president abruptly called for Clayton’s confirmation hearing to be canceled last week.

Talks on extending FISA Section 702 were already strained, with some members of both parties pushing for stricter guardrails and arguing the program can scoop up Americans’ communications without a warrant. Intelligence officials say the program is essential to national security.

Advertisement

Asked whether Democrats have miscalculated, Crow said “not at all.”

“I know how important it is, but I’m unwilling to trade Americans’ constitutional rights, privacy and essential civil liberties for temporary extension to this program,” Crow said.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on “Face the Nation” that “any Democrat that shuts down FISA at a time of great peril for the United States is making a huge mistake.”

“We’re playing with fire here, no matter what side does it,” Graham said. “America needs FISA up and running.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending