Newly disclosed text messages between Blake Lively and Taylor Swift have emerged in the ongoing legal dispute surrounding the film It Ends With Us, revealing candid conversations about director Justin Baldoni. The communications, which were partially unsealed on January 20, offer a glimpse into the behind-the-scenes tensions that have fueled one of Hollywood's most closely watched courtroom battles.
The exchange, submitted as evidence in Lively's lawsuit against Baldoni, captures a moment during the film's production when relationships began to fray. According to court documents, Lively didn't mince words when describing the filmmaker to her pop superstar friend. She reportedly referred to him as "this doofus director of my movie" and dismissively called him "a clown" who had overstepped his boundaries by thinking he could write.
The core of the controversy centers on a specific request Lively allegedly made to Swift. While Baldoni was present at Lively's home, the actress reached out to Swift, who was en route to visit her. Lively asked Swift to endorse a revised version of the script that she was proposing. Baldoni's legal team contends that Lively wanted this endorsement "even without having read it," suggesting a rush to secure support for her creative vision without proper consideration.
Swift's response, as documented in the filing, was characteristically loyal and unequivocal: "I'll do anything for you !!" The message, punctuated with enthusiastic punctuation, underscores the close friendship between the two celebrities and Swift's willingness to support Lively without hesitation. This immediate and unconditional support has become a focal point in understanding the dynamics at play during the film's troubled production.
Following the encounter, Lively's gratitude poured out in subsequent texts. She praised Swift's intervention, writing that the singer had been "so epically heroic today" and that she had recounted every detail to her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds. The message continued with Lively reminiscing about the moment: "I kept remembering stuff- You making s--- up about me and lenses. And referring to yourself as my doll. This clown falling for all of it. But also resisting it. You are the worlds absolute greatest friend ever."
However, Lively's attorneys have pushed back aggressively against the narrative that these texts paint a complete picture. In refiled exhibits submitted on January 20, they argue that the released messages lack crucial context that would fundamentally change their interpretation. They point to Lively's sworn testimony, in which she provided a more detailed account of the interaction. According to her statement, she sent Swift the script while the singer was traveling to her apartment specifically because Baldoni was still there. Lively maintains that she explicitly told Swift she didn't have to read it and didn't want to pressure her, though she hoped she would review the material.
The timing of this revelation is significant. The texts were unsealed just days before a scheduled summary judgment hearing on January 22 in Lively's ongoing lawsuit against Baldoni. The legal proceedings have become increasingly complex, with multiple filings and counterclaims painting competing narratives about what transpired during the film's production. Each new piece of evidence seems to add another layer of complexity to an already convoluted case.
Swift's involvement in the case, while peripheral, has attracted considerable attention from media and fans alike. Though she is not a named party in the lawsuit, her name has surfaced repeatedly in court documents, making her a shadow participant in the proceedings. Baldoni's legal team has attempted to portray Swift as an influential figure who was leveraged by Lively to exert pressure during creative disputes. In May 2025, they attempted to subpoena Swift, seeking to compel her testimony about her role in the production discussions and her relationship with Lively.
Baldoni's claims extend beyond this single text exchange. In a complaint filed in January 2025, he alleged that Lively referred to Swift as one of her "dragons" in a text conversation, implying that the singer was part of a powerful network Lively could call upon when needed. He further claimed that Swift herself pressured him to accept rewrites on the movie, suggesting direct involvement from the music icon in the film's creative process. These allegations, if proven true, would suggest a level of interference that goes beyond friendly support.
Lively's January 20, 2026 filing doesn't deny the language used in the texts but again emphasizes the missing context. Her legal team directed the court to the "complete" text exchange, which includes subsequent messages from Lively to Baldoni that they argue paint a different picture. In these later communications, Lively reportedly wrote about how "we all benefit" from her relationship with Reynolds and Swift, adding optimistically, "you will too, I can promise you." This suggests that Lively viewed her connections as an asset to the project rather than a means of exerting undue pressure.
Swift's camp has been firm and unambiguous in its response to these allegations. Following the attempted subpoena in May 2025, a representative issued a clear statement distancing the singer from the project: "Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made." The statement effectively rebuts claims of her direct involvement in the production's creative direction and positions her as merely a friend offering support, not a professional consultant.
The legal battle stems from deeper conflicts that arose during the making of It Ends With Us, the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover's bestselling novel. What began as a collaborative effort to bring a beloved story to the screen has devolved into a public dispute over creative control, professional conduct, and the influence of celebrity friendships in Hollywood decision-making. The film, which deals with sensitive topics of domestic abuse, has become overshadowed by the very public falling out between its star and director.
Industry observers note that the case highlights the increasingly blurred lines between personal relationships and professional collaborations in the entertainment world. When A-list stars bring their powerful friends into creative discussions, even informally, it can create complex dynamics that may later become fodder for legal disputes. The question of where friendly advice ends and professional interference begins is not always clear-cut, especially in an industry built on relationships and reputation.
The unsealed texts also raise important questions about how evidence is presented in high-profile cases. Lively's team's insistence on the importance of context serves as a reminder that selective disclosure can shape narratives in ways that may not reflect the full reality of a situation. In the age of digital communication, where conversations are preserved in exacting detail, the interpretation of these records has become a central battleground in many legal disputes, particularly those involving public figures.
As the summary judgment hearing approaches, both sides are marshaling evidence to support their respective positions. For Lively, the case represents a defense of her creative input and professional reputation against what she likely perceives as attempts to minimize her contributions. For Baldoni, it appears to be an effort to push back against what he perceives as undue influence and interference in his directorial vision, potentially compromising his artistic integrity.
The attempted subpoena of Swift, while unsuccessful in securing her direct participation, has ensured her presence looms large over the proceedings. Her friendship with Lively, once a private matter celebrated by fans, has become a matter of public legal record. The texts reveal not just the mechanics of Hollywood deal-making, but the genuine affection and loyalty between two of the entertainment industry's most powerful women.
What happens next in this legal saga could have implications beyond just the parties involved. It may influence how studios handle creative disputes between actors and directors, how celebrities navigate their friendships in professional contexts, and how courts treat text message evidence in entertainment industry cases. The outcome could set precedents for how much influence a star's personal network can legally exert on a film production.
For now, the public can only glimpse the story through partially unsealed documents and competing narratives, waiting for the full truth to emerge in court. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of modern filmmaking, where creative differences can escalate into costly legal battles and where even the most casual text messages can become evidence. As both sides continue to trade filings and press statements, the entertainment world watches closely, aware that the resolution of this dispute could reverberate throughout the industry for years to come.