breakup

For the first time in seven years, Lily Allen is back with a new album. It’s intimate, raw and autofictional.

Last week, the “Smile” singer shared a 14-track breakup record, “West End Girl.” Amid her split with “Stranger Things” actor David Harbour, Allen provides an in-depth look into a broken relationship where the line between being open and being unfaithful is thin, where dating apps are on the table and where heartbreak seems inevitable.

The album, which was written in 10 days last December, begins with Allen’s move to New York. The singer relocated to the East Coast in 2020 with her two daughters and then-husband, following the couple’s whirlwind wedding in Las Vegas. When Allen started dating Harbour in 2019, she had just finalized her divorce from Sam Cooper, with whom she shares her children.

On “West End Girl’s” opening track, she sings about receiving an offer to be in a West End production in London. In 2021, Allen made her debut in the supernatural play “2:22 — A Ghost Story.” From that moment on, tensions and distance only continued to build between the pair. Toward the end of the title track, Allen includes her end of a call where her partner is seemingly asking to open up the marriage.

As the pop melodies continue to ebb and flow, Allen reveals accusations of infidelity, the complications of being in an open marriage and mentions a pseudonym for a mistress on a track named “Madeline.” She doesn’t stray away from details, especially when it comes to finding boxes of sex toys, love letters from other women and calling her partner a “sex addict” on “P— Palace.”

By the end of the record, she makes it clear that the relationship is irreparable. The pair announced their separation last February after four years of marriage. Since the project’s release last Friday, critics have been quick to fawn over Allen’s return to music and Allen has been sure to let the press know the album is not fully based in fact.

In an interview with The Times, the U.K.’s oldest national daily newspaper, she says, “I don’t think I could say it’s all true — I have artistic license. … But yes, there are definitely things I experienced within my relationship that have ended up on this album.”

She similarly told Perfect Magazine that the work can be considered “autofiction” and that an “alter ego” is singing. When sitting down with British Vogue, she clarified that the album is inspired by what went on in the relationship between, but “that’s not to say that it’s all gospel,”

Harbour has yet to directly speak out about their relationship and has strayed away from the public eye, disabling comments on his Instagram page.

In an interview with GQ in April, he said, “There’s no use in that form of engaging [with tabloid news] because it’s all based on hysterical hyperbole.”

The highly anticipated final season of Netflix’s “Stranger Things,” where Harbour plays the role of police chief Jim Hopper, will be released Nov. 27.

JaNa Craig and Kenny Rodriguez have gone from “Love Island” to Splitsville.

The pair of reality TV stars who kindled a romance last year on “Love Island” Season 6 have called it quits, The Times confirmed Monday. Craig broke up with Rodriguez on Sunday, a day after they were among the guests at YouTube star David Dobrik‘s birthday party.

“They will not be getting back together,” a source confirmed to People.

A representative for Craig declined to comment. The Times did not immediately hear back from Rodriguez.

Though Craig and Rodriguez fell short of winning their season last year (fellow contestants Kordell Beckham and Serena Page took the prize), the pair continued their relationship off-screen. Craig opened up about her relationship with Rodriguez to People in October 2024, telling the magazine that time away from the cameras meant “we can take our time.”

“We always forgot that there was cameras anyways so nothing’s really changed,” she said at the time.

Craig and Rodriguez’s relationship came back into the “Love Island” spotlight earlier this month for Peacock’s “Love Island: Beyond the Villa.” The series, which premiered July 13, follows the Season 6 contestants “as they navigate new careers, evolving friendships, newfound fame, and complex relationships,” according to a press release for the show.

Right before the premiere of “Love Island: Beyond the Villa,” fans bid farewell to “Love Island” Season 7 — which was notably marred by controversy. Two contestants — Yulissa Escobar and Cierra Ortega — left the series weeks apart after they came under fire for their off-air use of racial slurs.

The season ended with contestants Amaya Espinal and Bryan Arenales taking home the $100,000 grand prize.

In 2022, Robert Ellis pledged $200,000 to create a garden in the Los Angeles Zoo’s bird theater.

By January, the city of Los Angeles had sued its nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., amid longstanding tensions over spending and other issues.

Ellis, a GLAZA board member, redirected his donation to a fund for the nonprofit’s legal fees.

At stake in the messy divorce between the city and the association is a nearly $50-million endowment that each side claims is theirs and that funds much of the zoo’s special projects, capital improvements and exhibit construction.

The city’s contract with GLAZA, which governs fundraising, special events and more, ends Tuesday, leaving the zoo in a precarious place, with no firm plan for how to proceed.

The elephant exhibit is empty after the last two Asian elephants, Billy and Tina, were transferred to the Tulsa Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

The zoo, which houses more than 1,600 animals, has become increasingly dilapidated. Exhibits including the lions, bears, sea lions and pelicans have closed because they need major renovations. The last two elephants, Billy and Tina, recently departed for the Tulsa Zoo after decades of campaigning by animal rights advocates over living conditions and a history of deaths and health challenges.

The 59-year-old zoo, which occupies 133 acres in the northeast corner of Griffith Park, is struggling to maintain its national accreditation, with federal regulators finding peeling paint and rust in some exhibits.

U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors and the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums found a “critical lack of funding and staffing to address even the most basic repairs,” L.A. Zoo officials wrote in a budget document in November 2024.

A sign designating a closed exhibit is posted in an animal enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Meanwhile, attendance has declined to a projected 1.5 million visitors in 2024-25, down about 100,000 from the previous year, the zoo said, citing “outdated infrastructure” and closed exhibits as part of the reason.

“We’re not vibrant like we should be,” said Karen Winnick, president of the city Board of Zoo Commissioners.

GLAZA has been the zoo’s main partner since it opened in 1966, handling fundraising, special events, membership, publications, volunteers and sponsorship.

The zoo’s $31-million operating budget comes largely from tickets and other sources, with only 1% to 2% directly from the association, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

But the indirect amount is higher, since GLAZA raises money through membership and special events, depositing some of it in a fund that covers most of the zoo’s budget.

Outside of the operating budget, the group also raises money for facility renovations and programs such as animal care, conservation and education.

Through a spokesperson, Ellis and other GLAZA board members declined to comment.

Devin Donahue, a lawyer for GLAZA, said in a statement that the nonprofit “spent more than 60 years building up an eight-figure endowment that the City of Los Angeles is now attempting to seize without concern for the intent of the donors who chose to give to a trusted charity, and not to a city running a billion-dollar deficit. To remove GLAZA’s safeguarding hand from Zoo funding would be catastrophic for both the LA Zoo and its animals.”

A flamingo basks in water at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

One GLAZA insider blamed the conflicts on Zoo Director and CEO Denise Verret, saying she has tried to take power away from the association since she assumed the role in 2019.

Another source familiar with the relationship said that zoo officials believe they don’t need GLAZA and have wanted to end the partnership for years.

“They [the city] believe they could do this on their own,” said the second source, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the partnership amid the ongoing litigation. “There’s a lot of animosity, as opposed to it being a healthy relationship or one of gratitude.”

The relationship between the zoo and GLAZA has been fraught for decades, stemming from issues regarding money and power, said Manuel Mollinedo, who was zoo director from 1995 to 2002.

“They would make the zoo literally beg for money,” Mollinedo said. “The problem with GLAZA is they see themselves as an entity only responsible in answering to themselves. They don’t see themselves as an organization there to support and work with the zoo.”

Mollinedo said he always thought the zoo would be better off taking some power away from GLAZA and instead partnering with different organizations.

GLAZA has accused the zoo of not properly spending the money that the association raises.

“Notwithstanding red flag warnings of disrepair at the Zoo, enclosure and exhibit closures, and troubling risks to the health and safety of the Zoo’s animals, the City has failed to spend money raised by GLAZA and available to it for necessary remediation,” the nonprofit said in court papers.

In 2023, more than 20 years after Mollinedo left the zoo, city officials announced that they would open up “requests for proposals” for organizations interested in performing GLAZA’s functions, in what they described as an effort to promote fairness and transparency and ensure that the zoo was getting the best services.

By initiating the application process, the city showed that it had no interest in continuing its “overarching partnership” with the organization, Erika Aronson Stern, chair of the GLAZA Board of Trustees, said in a letter to Mayor Karen Bass in October.

GLAZA declined to apply and announced that it would be walking away, along with its nearly $50-million endowment.

A giraffe watches as people pass by its enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Some of the endowment money still needed to spent on the zoo, according to donors’ wishes, and GLAZA would transfer that money to the facility — but it refused to cede control of the fund.

Late last year, the city sued the association, arguing that it was the rightful owner of the endowment.

“GLAZA has only been permitted to raise funds on behalf of the City, never on its own exclusive behalf,” wrote Deputy City Atty. Steven Son.

GLAZA said it does have the right to raise funds for itself and asserted that the city has been mismanaging zoo money for years.

Los Angeles Zoo Director Denise Verret stands in front of an area of the zoo slated for redevelopment. The 20-acre expansion would include a new hilltop Yosemite lodge-style California Visitor Center with sweeping views of a 25,000- square-foot vineyard.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Verret, the zoo’s director, spent exorbitant amounts on activities unrelated to the zoo, GLAZA alleged in court documents, including $22,000 on a party celebrating her own appointment in 2019, $13,000 improving her office and $14,000 on the assistant director’s office.

The association also said in court documents that it provided at least $1.7 million at Verret’s request for conservation organizations that are “separate and distinct” from the zoo.

Verret argued in court papers that her use of the money was appropriate. She modernized “1960s-era” administrative offices, and her welcome party helped “strengthen relationships.” Conservation is one of the zoo’s “core purposes,” she said, noting that GLAZA didn’t raise the spending questions until after the city sued.

In a statement, Verret said the zoo is prepared to be on the international stage for the Summer Olympics in 2028.

“With the new structure and … new business partners in place, the L.A. Zoo is in a very healthy place now and continues to focus on its mission,” she said.

As for fundraising, she was less clear.

“Although we are still developing plans to establish a new fundraising model, we are future-focused with our priorities and efforts grounded in the gold-standard care and well-being for the animals at the zoo,” she said.

On Wednesday, a judge ruled that GLAZA cannot solicit donations “that are not for the exclusive benefit of the Los Angeles Zoo” and may not use funds from the endowment without the city’s permission. The question of who controls the endowment is still open.

Donahue, the GLAZA lawyer, called the judge’s ruling “wrong on the law and facts, deeply flawed analytically and not in the best interest of the Zoo, its animals, its donors, or the people of Los Angeles.” He said was confident that an appellate court would reach a different decision.

As the lawsuit moves forward, the City Council is working to approve new contracts with other organizations to handle concessions, memberships and other functions. City employees perform many core jobs, such as feeding and caring for the animals, but volunteers supplied by GLAZA, including the docents that gave tours, played a major role in the zoo’s day-to-day operations.

“It’s really a shame that it has devolved to this point,” said Ron Galperin, a former city controller who conducted a special review of the relationship between the nonprofit and the zoo in 2018 and found it “cumbersome and confusing.”

Galperin has advocated for the zoo to be run as a public-private partnership, with the city leasing the land and animals to an organization like GLAZA that would run it, similar to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Hollywood Bowl.

The city previously explored that option after the 2008 financial crisis, but it was opposed by unions that represent zoo workers, as well as by animal rights activists who believed there would be less transparency surrounding the care of the animals.

About 73% of accredited zoos are managed by non-government entities — 57% by nonprofits and 16% by for-profit organizations, according to a study by the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums.

Winnick, the Zoo Commission president, believes a privately run zoo would raise funds more effectively and save the city money.

“We need new governance for our zoo, and this is the time to do it, with our city overwhelmed by so many problems,” she said. “It would serve people of L.A. and the community for us to go into public-private partnership.”

Instead, the city will run the zoo piecemeal, with at least two organizations taking over what GLAZA once did.

The city recently came to an agreement with SSA Group, LLC to run membership, special events and publications, while The Superlative Group will run sponsorship programs. The city plans to manage volunteers itself.

But the zoo still has not found a fundraising partner.

“For the city to lose a fundraising partner at this point in time, with the deficit we have and visitors we’re expecting to L.A., is sad,” said Richard Lichtenstein, a former member of the GLAZA board and a former zoo commissioner, who said he was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the association.

“The city does deserve, and its residents deserve, a first-class facility, and without a funding partner, it is difficult to see how the zoo is going to be able to maintain itself as a world-class facility,” he said.

It’s official: United States President Donald Trump and the world’s richest person, Elon Musk, have broken up.

At the end of last month, Musk departed from his post as the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he oversaw the mass firing of federal employees and dismantling of various government agencies – all the while benefitting from his own companies’ lucrative contracts with the government.

Anyway, US “democracy” has never met a conflict of interest it didn’t like.

Musk’s service at the White House initially appeared to end on an amicable note as Trump praised him for the “colossal change” he had achieved “in the old ways of doing business in Washington”. The former head of DOGE in turn thanked the president for the opportunity.

But soon after his departure, Musk publicly criticised the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, a tax and spending bill that Trump is currently obsessed with passing, slamming it as a “disgusting abomination”.

There ensued predictably dramatic social media exchanges between the two right-wing billionaires with Trump pronouncing Musk “so depressed and so heartbroken” after leaving the White House and offering the additional coherent analysis:

“ It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour’s gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.”

Musk has repeatedly taken credit for Trump’s 2024 election victory on account of the gobs of money he donated to the president’s campaign and those of other Republican candidates. Now that the relationship is over, Trump has wasted no time in warning Musk that he’ll face “very serious consequences” if he chooses to fund Democratic campaigns in the future.

But some Democratic ears, at least, have perked up at the possibility of getting the planet’s richest person back on their side – which he abandoned in favour of Trump after having extended support to Democratic former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The political switcheroo was hardly extreme. At the end of the day, ideology matters little when you’re just in the business of buying power.

California Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, recently opined that Democrats should “be in a dialogue” with Musk in light of their shared opposition to Trump’s big beautiful bill.

As per Khanna’s view, “we should ultimately be trying to convince [Musk] that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with.” He went on to list a few of these alleged values: “A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.”

Never mind that Musk’s main “value” is a commitment to controlling as much of the earth – not to mention the whole solar system – as he possibly can for the benefit of himself and himself alone. Beyond his mass firing activities while head of DOGE, a brief review of Musk’s entrepreneurial track record reveals a total lack of the “values” that Democrats purport to espouse.

Over recent years, reports have abounded of sexual harassment and acute racism at Musk’s Tesla car factories. In October 2021, a federal jury in San Francisco ordered Tesla to pay $137m to a Black former employee who claimed he was told to “go back to Africa” among other abuses suffered at his workplace.

Along with violating federal labour laws, Musk as chief executive of Tesla threatened workers over the prospect of unionisation. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, he violated local regulations to keep his factories up and running, underscoring a general contempt for human life that, again, should not be a “value” that anyone aspires to.

To be sure, not all Democrats are on board with the proposal to woo Musk back into the Democratic camp – but he may be getting a growing cheering squad. In addition to Khanna’s advocacy on his behalf, New York Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres seems prepared to give Musk his vote as well: “I’m a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the [big beautiful] legislation.”

Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s former White House director of communications, has, meanwhile, suggested that Democrats could “bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son” by foregoing more left-wing policies – as if there’s anything truly left-wing about the Democratic Party in the first place.

Newsweek’s write-up of Scaramucci’s comments observed that “It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world’s richest man once more.” It would not, obviously, be a coup for democracy, which is supposed to be rule by the people and not by money.

And yet a longstanding bipartisan commitment to plutocracy means the US has never been in danger of true democracy. Instead, billions upon billions of dollars are spent to sustain an electoral charade and ensure that capital remains concentrated in the hands of the few – while Americans continue to literally die of poverty.

Now it remains to be seen whether the Trump-Musk breakup will drive Democrats into Musk’s arms. But either way, the country’s plutocratic values remain rock solid – and that is nothing less than a “disgusting abomination”.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The big break-up: The president of the United States, Donald Trump, has parted ways with the richest man in the world, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Once their friendship reaped rewards for both: Musk donated around hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump’s re-election campaign and the president created a role for Musk in his government.

But political, or fiscal, differences soured the relationship, and what was once a mutually beneficial alliance deteriorated into an exchange of insults on social media.

So, did Elon Musk’s position undermine US democracy?

And do Donald Trump’s friendships and interests influence US policy?

Presenter: Elizabeth Puranam

Guests:

Niall Stanage – Political analyst and White House columnist for The Hill newspaper

Dan Ives – Technology analyst and managing director of Wedbush Securities

Faiz Siddiqui – Author of, Hubris Maximus: The Shattering of Elon Musk

June 5 (UPI) — President Donald Trump and former Department of Government Efficiency Director Elon Musk are slinging accusations after an apparent end to their short-lived friendship.

Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going “crazy” after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration.

“I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. “He just went crazy!”

Trump also has threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending.

The president’s threat likely resonated with investors as Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker.

Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May.

Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help.

He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump’s campaign effort.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X.

Musk has criticized the proposed “one big, beautiful” federal government budget bill as increasing the nation’s debt and negating his work with DOGE.

The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed.

“I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago,” Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon.

“This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress,” he continued. “It’s a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given.”

If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, “and things far worse than that.”

The president said the “easiest way to save money … is to terminate Elon’s governmental subsidies and contracts” with Tesla.

Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is “time to drop the really big bomb” on the president.

Trump “is in the Epstein files,” Musk said. “That is the real reason they have not been made public.”

Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: “Have a nice day, DJT!”

He made a subsequent post that asks: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?”

Trump and Musk were very close during the first four months of the Trump administration and often appeared together at high-profile events.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s friendship and political alliance with Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who fueled Trump’s campaign with record amounts of cash before working at the White House by his side until last week, appears to be over, with both men leveling searing criticism against one another in a sharp public feud.

Musk had been criticizing the Trump administration over its signature legislation, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” for its projected impact on the national debt throughout last week. But his calls to “kill the bill” on Wednesday prompted Trump, speaking to media from the Oval Office, to respond in kind.

“Elon and I had a great relationship, I don’t know if we will anymore,” Trump said Thursday. “And he hasn’t said bad things about me personally, but I’m sure that’ll be next. But I’m very disappointed in Elon.”

Musk, responding on his social media platform, X, took credit for Trump’s election victory. The billionaire entrepreneur, whose companies also include SpaceX and Tesla, contributed over $280 million to Trump and other Republicans during the 2024 presidential campaign.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote. “Such ingratitude.”

The exchange broke open a feud that had been simmering for weeks out of public view. In private, Musk had relayed concerns over the bill to the president, while expressing disagreement with several other policies, including the establishment of an artificial intelligence campus in the Middle East and Trump’s announcement of global tariffs.

“I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion,” Musk said in a more muted tone last week, speaking in an interview with CBS.

“You know, there are things that I don’t entirely agree with. But it’s difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention,” he added. “So then, I’m a little stuck in a bind, where I’m like, well, I don’t wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I also don’t wanna take responsibility for everything this administration’s doing.”

In the Oval Office, Trump said he believed that Musk had turned on him after he rejected Musk’s recommendation for the head of NASA, a position that could benefit SpaceX, Musk’s spaceship company. He also said that Musk opposed provisions of Trump’s megabill that would phase out tax credits for electric vehicles.

“Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. Better than you people. He knew everything about it — he had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars,” Trump said.

“People leave my administration and they love us, and at some point, they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile,” Trump added. “I don’t know what it is.”

But Musk denied he had been shown the bill, responding on X that he wouldn’t mind if the EV provisions remain in the text so long as others, which he said would balloon annual deficits, are cut.

“This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!” Musk wrote. “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an assessment on Wednesday estimating that the “big, beautiful bill,” which has passed the House and is under consideration in the Senate, would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, and result in 10.9 million Americans losing health insurance coverage over the same period.

At the beginning of the administration, Trump put Musk in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, a White House program that intended on cutting federal spending and reducing the deficit. Musk’s tenure in the role, designated as a special government employee, ended last week.

On X, Musk posted a collection of past remarks from Trump warning against growing deficits and congressional actions increasing the debt ceiling, adding, “where is this guy today?”

“Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill,” Musk added. “Slim and beautiful is the way.”