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

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

Published

on

Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote

A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

Advertisement

In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.

A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)

Advertisement

Advertisement

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.

“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”

Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

Advertisement

Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.

Advertisement

Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Continue Reading

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
Advertisement

Trending