How Blake Lively Allegedly Used Taylor Swift to Pressure Justin Baldoni Behind the Scenes
The ongoing legal feud between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has taken a dramatic turn, with new allegations surfacing that Lively allegedly invoked her friendship with Taylor Swift to pressure Baldoni during disputes over their film It Ends With Us. Though heavily contested, the claims have stirred intense debate about celebrity influence, power dynamics, and the blurry boundaries of artistic control in Hollywood.
According to Baldoni’s side, the conflict began during post-production, when disagreements over editing, marketing, and creative decisions escalated. Baldoni’s legal team alleges that Lively—who starred in the movie and held significant creative sway—attempted to push for extended editing time and greater influence over the final cut. The filings claim she used her connection to Taylor Swift as a form of leverage in these negotiations.
One of the most publicized accusations is that Lively hinted she could withdraw support for the use of Swift’s song My Tears Ricochet in the film’s trailer if Baldoni didn’t agree to certain demands. The alleged implication was that losing the song would jeopardize the film’s promotional momentum, given Swift’s global star power and the built-in attention her music generates. This, according to Baldoni’s account, felt like a veiled threat designed to force compliance.
Another claim centers on text exchanges in which Lively allegedly suggested that she had “dragons” of influence—interpreted by Baldoni’s team as referring to Swift and Lively’s husband, actor Ryan Reynolds. In their view, the message implied that if Baldoni didn’t bend to her wishes, she had powerful allies who could sway public opinion or apply pressure in subtler ways.
Baldoni reportedly stated during deposition that he felt cornered, believing Lively had the social influence to frame the narrative against him if he resisted. He allegedly said he feared she could “play the victim” and use the media to paint him unfavorably—a tactic he described as “the Taylor Swift playbook,” referring to the singer’s well-documented ability to mobilize public sentiment.
However, Lively’s team has fiercely denied all such allegations. Her attorney called the claims “cowardly” and “misleading,” arguing that they distort normal creative disagreements into sensationalized accusations. Lively’s representatives say she never threatened anyone, never weaponized her friendships, and never attempted to manipulate Swift’s involvement for personal gain.
Taylor Swift’s team has also stepped forward to clarify her role. They assert that Swift had no creative influence over the film, did not participate in production decisions, and was only involved in a straightforward music-licensing agreement. Swift’s representatives have dismissed the attempt to subpoena her texts and involve her in the dispute as nothing more than an effort to generate attention through her name.
This entire situation has become a striking example of how personal relationships, public image, and power can intersect in Hollywood — and how quickly creative conflicts can escalate into high-stakes legal and PR battles. Regardless of which version proves accurate, the case highlights the increasing influence of celebrity alliances and the ways in which reputations can be wielded, perceived, or weaponized in high-pressure negotiations.
