Taylor Swift ‘ignoring' Blake Lively's ‘grovelling' texts after being dragged into legal battle: report
Taylor Swift is reportedly 'done' with her former BFF Blake Lively and is 'ignoring' all attempts at contact after being dragged into the actress' legal war with Justin Baldoni.
A source told the Daily Mail that the It Ends With Us star's 'grovelling' calls, texts and emails have all gone unanswered, despite the pair's decade-long friendship – and the fact that Swift is even godmother to Lively's children with Ryan Reynolds.
'Even though Taylor has totally cut ties with her, Blake hasn't with Taylor,' the insider claimed.
'She's been reaching out to her with texts, voicemails and even emails begging to mend what they once had. Blake isn't giving up on trying to get her friendship with Taylor back on track.
'Taylor hasn't responded to any of Blake's pleas. She's ignored all her grovelling excuses. The missives explain there must be some misunderstanding on Taylor's part and that she would never do anything to harm their ten years of closeness and personal secrets.'
The source added that Swift feels 'betrayed' and 'exploited' by Lively.
'Taylor obviously still means so much to Blake, but Taylor's totally done with her and as of right now, no requests will mend their bond as far as she's concerned,' they said.
The once-close friendship reportedly came to an abrupt halt in May after the Cruel Summer singer was subpoaned as a witness by Baldoni's legal team in his ongoing It Ends With Us legal battle with Lively.
At the time, a source close to Swift told People magazine that she had 'halted' her relationship with the Gossip Girl star: 'Taylor wants no part in this drama.'
Baldoni's legal team subsequently withdrew the subpoena after Swift denied any involvement in the saga.
'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 any notes on the film, she did not even see 'It Ends With Us' until weeks after its public release, and was travelling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history,' her representative said, in response to the subpoena.
The inclusion of Swift in the court battle in May added even more attention to the high-profile battle between Lively and Baldoni, which began in December when Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni for emotional distress and lost wages.
A month later, Baldoni returned serve, suing Lively – as well as Reynolds – for US$400 million ($A623 million).
Baldoni then claimed Lively had weaponised her friendship with Swift to try and leverage creative control of their film, which he was directing.
At the time, Page Six reported that his complaint referenced how one of Lively's 'famous, and famously close' friends had been at her and Reynolds' NYC home when he was invited over one evening.
He claimed that the celebrity in question had praised Lively's script rewrites to him, referencing the 'rooftop scene' where the main characters first meet.
'I really love what you did. It really does help a lot,' Baldoni wrote in a text written about their meeting.
'Makes it so much more fun and interesting. (And I would have felt that way without Ryan or Taylor).'
Lively then responded, calling Swift and Reynolds her 'creative barometers' and 'dragons'.
'The message could not have been clearer. Baldoni was not just dealing with Lively. He was also facing Lively's 'dragons,' two of the most influential and wealthy celebrities in the world, who were not afraid to make things very difficult for him,' Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, alleged.
However, a source close to Swift told the Daily Mail that she had no involvement, and had arrived at her friend's home to find the meeting already underway.
Both Lively and Baldoni have denied all accusations against them and their legal trial is set for March 2026.
Meanwhile, court documents obtained by Page Six this week showed that Lively has requested to withdraw claims that she suffered from an 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' and 'negligent infliction of emotional distress' as a result of Baldoni's alleged misconduct.
The filing followed Baldoni's legal team requesting she sign a release form so they could access her medical and mental health records, arguing that they were vital to her 'emotional distress' allegations.
The court will now determine if Lively's request will be approved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump-Musk bromance spirals into public spat
Elon Musk receives the key to the White House from U.S. President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 30, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard (Reuters: Nathan Howard)
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Australian company Intrepid Travel fights back against Donald Trump threat to US national parks
An Australian company is fighting back against Donald Trump's planned upheaval of US national parks. Since US President Donald Trump took office, more than 1000 park workers have been laid off (more than 700 others took buyouts), and more are expected to be let go. There is also a proposal to cut more than $US1 billion ($A1.5 billion) in federal funding for the US National Parks Service (nearly 40 per cent of the agency's current budget). NPS oversees 85 million acres of federal land and there are 433 sites in the National Park System, with parks in every state. National Park Conservation Association president Theresa Pierno described Mr Trump's proposed budget plan as 'catastrophic,' arguing that the 'national park system would be completely decimated'. Mr Trump wants to see some parks (that the White House describes as 'not 'national parks' in the traditionally understood sense') go to the states, but there are concerns states don't have the resources to maintain the parks, which will force them to close. The White House claims the proposed budget would 'continue supporting many national treasures, but there is an urgent need to streamline staffing and transfer certain properties to state-level management to ensure the long-term health and sustainment of the national park system'. Aussie-born company fights back A Melbourne-born global travel company, which runs tours across 18 US national parks, has made its stance clear. Speaking to on Thursday, Intrepid Travel's Leigh Barnes described national parks as 'incredibly important' to the US and said the White House's massive proposed funding cuts are 'putting access at risk'. 'We need healthy, vibrant national parks for our business, and also the impact of not having tourism go to national parks in the USA is going to put local businesses underground,' said Mr Barnes, an Australian who relocated to Seattle this year to take up the role of managing director of the Americas. In response to the Trump Administration's actions, Intrepid has now launched limited edition 'Active-ism' trips in the parks, hosted by influential activists and local guides. The trips are about $US500-$600 ($A770-$920) cheaper than a standard itinerary, despite the addition of an activist. 'That has been a deliberate focus, making them as accessible as possible,' Mr Barnes said. 'They're not going to be the world's greatest profit generator for the organisation, but that's not the purpose.' Intrepid will also donate $US50,000 ($A77,000) on behalf of its travellers to nongovernmental organisations protecting the US national parks. Intrepid has 26 trips across 18 national parks, and employs 200 local guides and 60 staff there. The company has taken more than 20,000 travellers and expects to host another 5000 this year. Mr Barnes explained that it's not just direct jobs at the US National Parks Service at risk. 'They (national parks) are absolutely amazing economic drivers for these areas. Having these national parks creates jobs in and around the national parks ecosystem. Not just the national parks employees but all the little smaller businesses and ecosystems it supports,' he said. He added: 'They're a massive pride and icon in the USA. 'We want to ensure these amazing parts of the USA are not just here for this generation but the generations beyond.' Mr Barnes said the more people who experience nature, the more that are likely to advocate for these spaces, so his team simply asked themselves, 'how do we encourage more people to go out to national parks?'. The Active-ism trips include two five-day 'Zion and The Grand Canyon' trips hosted by public lands advocate Alex Haraus in November and environmental advocate Wawa Gatheru in April next year, and then two six-day 'Yellowstone and The Grand Tetons' trips hosted by climate educator Michael Mezzatesta and environmental author Leah Thomas in June next year. The target market is Americans but anyone can book. Discussions guests can expect include the current threats facing US national parks, the impact of climate change, Indigenous land rights, equity in outdoor spaces, and how to turn awareness into advocacy. Mr Barnes, previously Intrepid's chief customer officer in Melbourne, took on leading the Americas side of the business at a challenging time for US tourism. March — the same month Mr Barnes relocated his family to the States — saw the sharpest drop in Australians travelling to the US since during the height of the Covid pandemic, according to US International Trade Administration statistics. Australian visitor numbers fell 7 per cent in March this year, compared to March 2024 — the biggest drop since March 2021. Flight Centre and Intrepid Travel told last month bookings to the US had dropped significantly as Aussies, Canadians and Europeans choose to travel elsewhere. Globally, Intrepid saw a year-on-year 9 per cent decline in US sales for the first four months of the year. US sales for Australian and New Zealand travellers in particular were down 13 per cent. April alone was down 44 per cent on last year. But other areas such as South America are 'booming'. As a result, Mr Barnes said his team had increased their focus on domestic travel within the US, promoting the right products at the right time, and increasing their brand presence (last week Intrepid became an official partner of the Seattle Storm WNBA team). All eyes on American tourism The global tourism industry is keeping a close eye on the impact of Mr Trump's strict border stance and other controversial government policies like sweeping tariffs are having on travel. On Thursday, Mr Trump signed a new travel ban banning people from 12 countries to 'protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors'. The ban targets nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Flight Centre CEO and founder Graham Turner told it was an 'unsettled climate' impacting business travel, while tourists worry about passport control and others simply don't want to go to the US 'because they don't like what Donald Trump's doing'. Tourism Economics — which forecasts foreign traveller arrivals in the US will sharply decline this year resulting in a loss of $9 billion in spending — said decisions from the Trump Administration are creating a 'negative sentiment shift toward the US among travellers'. The travel data company's April report cited Mr Trump's stance on border security and immigration as one of the factors discouraging visits. Mr Trump rejects the notion that the country's tourism industry is in any trouble — saying 'tourism is way up'. Security checks at US airports have garnered much attention in recent months amid Mr Trump's 'enhanced vetting' for arrivals at US airports and cases of tourists being denied entry on arrival, and at times, strip searched and thrown in prison. Former NSW police officer Nikki Saroukos is one of those people who recently travelled to the US using an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under the Visa Waiver Program and was deported, but first she had to spend a night in a federal prison. She said she was subjected to invasive searches and humiliating treatment for trying to spend time with her US military husband stationed in Hawaii. The US Department of Homeland Security later issued what it described as a 'fact check' on X after she went public with the ordeal, accusing her of having 'unusual activity on her phone, including 1000 deleted text messages from her husband'. Homeland Security said 'officers determined that she was travelling for more than just tourism'. But Ms Saroukos strongly denies having any plans to live permanently in the US. The Sydney resident, who married her husband Matt in January after a whirlwind long-distance romance, told she was 'in disbelief at how ridiculous' the statement was and claimed that some of the information included had been 'twisted'. Why denied tourists can end up in federal prison CBP has long had strong powers to deny entry, detain and deport foreigners at their discretion when travellers arrive in the country even if they have a valid visa or ESTA. However, what we are seeing under the Trump administration is described as 'enhanced vetting'. Australians are being warned to not assume they are exempt to more intense checks, including inspections of emails, text messages or social media accounts at the airport. Melissa Vincenty, a US immigration lawyer and Australian migration agent who is managing director of Worldwide Migration Partners, told recently that being taken to federal prison with no criminal record, no drugs or anything that is a danger to society is the reality of being denied entry to the US in Hawaii. Ms Vincenty, a dual-citizen who was a deportation defence lawyer in Honolulu before moving to Australia, explained the state did not have an immigration facility so people were taken to the Federal Detention Center Honolulu, where there was no separate wing for immigration. It meant tourists who were denied entry to the US could be held alongside those awaiting trial — or who have been convicted and were waiting to be transferred to a mainland prison for serious federal crimes, such as kidnapping, bank robbery or drug crimes. 'It's like in the movies — you go there and there's bars, you get strip searched, all your stuff is taken away from you, you're not allowed to call anybody, nobody knows where you are,' Ms Vincenty told in April after the experience of two young German tourists being strip searched and thrown in prison made global headlines. Ms Vincenty said for Australians who were denied entry to the US in other locations like Los Angeles, San Francisco or Dallas, being held in detention facilities until the next available flight home was a real risk as there weren't constant return flights to Australia — meaning you might have to wait until the next day. If not taken to a detention facility, some travellers may stay sitting for hours in what is called a secondary inspection at the airport. A secondary inspection includes further vetting such as searching travellers' electronic devices. 'That period can last from half an hour to 15 hours or more,' she said.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Will Trump or Musk be able to hold back while flirting with mutually assured destruction?
Donald Trump sees himself as a world-class negotiator and deal maker — he will now need to bring all those skills to reach a ceasefire deal — not in Ukraine nor Gaza — but with Elon Musk. Musk now presents a real crisis for the Trump presidency. He's wealthy, powerful, unpredictable and he believes he's been wronged. And he knows a lot about the president and his family. This feud — carried out in real time on X — has captivated Americans. As one person posted on Musk's own online social media platform on Friday morning, when there was a lull in the abuse between the two: "What time do Trump and Musk wake up?" These are dangerous times for Donald Trump. Like a married couple, for the past year Musk and Trump have been with each other when the guests have left the dinner party. As each world leader has left the White House, as each influential member of Congress has shaken hands and left, these two have been left to do their own private debrief in the Oval Office. The relationship was so close that on one occasion when Trump was having a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump reportedly said to Zelenskyy words to the effect, "There's someone here I want you to say hello to," and handed the phone to Musk. A puzzled Ukrainian president was suddenly speaking to the world's richest man. That's how close Trump and Musk were during their political marriage. But now the divorce has come through and they're fighting about their legacies. Musk is trying to convince the world that he wanted to slash the US's crippling budget but that Trump sold out America by pushing a bill — the bill Trump likes to call "One Big Beautiful Bill" — through the House of Representatives. Trump is trying to convince the world that Musk is an erratic and unpredictable character, and that he's bitter because his bill cut subsidies to electric vehicles — which hit Musk's Tesla business — and that Trump asked him to leave. In recent weeks, Trump has had to have some fascinating calls — including with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, and with Chinese President Xi Jinping to bring an end to Trump's tariff war on the United States's trading partners. As wily as those two men are, he may need greater skills of persuasion — or threat — with Elon Musk. Within a few days of their split's fallout, Musk was threatening to support the impeachment of Trump, to support Vice-President JD Vance taking over and to withdraw funding for Trump's candidates in the mid-term election. Trump, for his part, was threatening to end government contracts enjoyed by Musk's Space X company. It's often said that information is power. If that's the case, these two have unparalleled information about each other. They have accessed each other's lives for more than a year. They know each other's families. They know each other's family problems. They know each other's business interests. They know each other's vulnerabilities — personal and business. On top of the power of information that comes with access, they both have raw power. Through his total control of agencies, Trump can access any tax or regulatory information on Musk and his businesses. Trump has shown he will use legal and regulatory powers to pursue his personal and political enemies. This makes Musk extremely vulnerable. Trump understands fully the power of his words from the Oval Office — this week within five minutes of him saying that he thought his friendship with Musk was over, Wall Street started selling Tesla shares. Then, when Trump began suggesting that he would end Musk's various government contracts, Wall Street panicked. Within an hour, Tesla shares had dived 14 per cent. Donald Trump had wiped billions off Musk's wealth. But Musk does not have the personality type to take this sort of thing calmly. He, too, has power — although his is not the ability to hit Trump's many financial interests (that he knows of) but rather to damage him politically. Like Musk, Trump is also vulnerable. Musk has the raw power that comes from being the world's richest man. He has his mass distribution publishing platform, X. By spending so much time with Trump and his family in both the White House — and for a time seemingly to live in Trump's Florida mansion, Mar-a-Lago — Musk would have knowledge of the Trump family's business dealings. It appears as if Trump decided some weeks ago that Musk was not long for the White House — that it was a matter of how to extricate Musk from the Oval Office without too much pain. Musk's behaviour became erratic. Those wild images of him waving a chainsaw and shouting that this was what he was using to cut government spending went down badly with many of those who had voted for Trump, particularly veterans who were suddenly losing entitlements. Then Musk made what appeared to be a Nazi salute. This, coupled with his strong support for Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AFD) party, made many Americans concerned about Musk's real views. When Musk, in a reference to the Holocaust, told AFD supporters that there was "too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that" and that the party's anti-immigration policies were "the best hope for Germany" it only heightened those concerns. Then reports began appearing about clashes between Musk and senior members of Trump's cabinet. Whether they were authorised by Trump or the White House or were from disenchanted members of Trump's cabinet is not clear, but what is clear is that a steady stream of leaks began appearing against Musk. One of the more damaging was that Musk had a blazing row in one cabinet meeting with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. The report said that Trump allowed the fight to go for some time, before intervening to stop it — by siding with Rubio. Then came reports of a clash witnessed by many between Musk and Scott Bessent, the well-liked secretary of the Treasury. Musk had shouted at Bessent in a corridor that Bessent was not cutting enough staff from his department quickly enough, at which point Bessent reportedly shouted back: "F*** off!" The leaks all appeared well sourced, and the White House did not vigorously deny them. Someone, it seems, was out to get Musk, apparently preparing the ground for his political execution. Then came perhaps the most devastating leak of all — details of Musk's alleged erratic behaviour, and drug use, since joining Trump's campaign to return to the White House. The New York Times reported: "As Elon Musk became one of Donald J. Trump's closest allies last year, leading raucous rallies and donating about $[US]275 million [$423 million] to help him win the presidency, he was also using drugs far more intensely than previously known, according to people familiar with his activities. "Mr Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use. He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anaesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he travelled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall, according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it. "It is unclear whether Mr. Musk, 53, was taking drugs when he became a fixture at the White House this year and was handed the power to slash the federal bureaucracy. But he has exhibited erratic behaviour, insulting cabinet members, gesturing like a Nazi and garbling his answers in a staged interview. "At the same time, Mr. Musk's family life has grown increasingly tumultuous as he has negotiated overlapping romantic relationships and private legal battles involving his growing brood of children, according to documents and interviews." This was now going well beyond the narrative that Musk was difficult to work with. This was creating the impression that Musk was erratic and unpredictable. Musk strongly denied The New York Times story: "To be clear, I am NOT taking drugs! The New York Times was lying their a... off," Musk insisted. "I tried prescription ketamine a few years ago and said so on X, so this not even news. It helps for getting out of dark mental holes, but haven't taken it since then." Whatever the truth of it all, Musk's reputation was taking a belting — and however wealthy and powerful is, Musk would have known that his reputation was bleeding. How many big investment houses want to put money behind somebody who, when they google his name, "ketamine" comes up? So the break-up was inevitable. Musk says it was his decision, that his role as head of DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency — had come to a natural end. Trump has a different version — he says he asked Musk to leave. Whoever is telling the truth, the couple gathered in the Oval Office to announce their separation. Both tried to put their best face on it — not an easy task for Musk, looking dishevelled and with a black eye which he claimed he received while playing with his son. As part of this apparently amicable divorce, Trump opened a box and handed Musk a golden "key to the White House". But, unmistakably, the chemistry which the two had always shared was gone. It had all the authenticity of a married couple who can barely look at each other announcing their divorce and saying: "We remain good friends, we just grew apart, and we will always put the interests of the children first." That didn't last long. Within days, Musk could not help himself. He began posting on X his concerns about Trump's signature budget bill, which Musk says will push the United States towards bankruptcy by its massive increase in the country's debt levels. This was a direct challenge to Trump, who has pressured Republicans to officially name the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill". But Trump did something he rarely does: He sat back and did not take the bait. All Trump's instincts are to lash out at anybody that he thinks might be criticising him, but with Musk he stayed quiet. By the hour, Musk's tweets gathered impact. Finally, he went so far as to urge Americans to contact their members of Congress to lobby them to "Kill the Bill". Some Republicans backed Musk, which would have concerned Trump. The Trump side began fighting back, initially through Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, who Trump nominated to ensure the bill went through the House — which it has — and now to try to shepherd it through the Senate. Although the Republicans control the Senate, as well as the House, some of the more conservative senators agree with Musk that this bill — with its huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans — will push the US towards bankruptcy. The Republicans hold the Senate by only a slim margin. It will only take three Republicans to vote against the bill to defeat it. This would be a huge blow to the centrepiece of Trump's economic policy. Johnson dropped something that would have outraged Musk. He suggested Musk was opposing the bill not because he was committed to the US cutting its deficit but because it cut subsidies to electric vehicles — the mainstay of the Tesla business — and was therefore hitting Elon Musk's business interests. This went against everything that Trump and the White House had been saying for a year. Trump had often told his rallies that Musk was in fact losing money by concentrating on the political world and was doing it selflessly as he wanted to "make America great again". So now, through Johnson, Musk was being re-cast from the great American MAGA patriot to the selfish businessman only concerned about his own wealth. Seemingly outraged by what he saw as an attempt to undermine him personally rather than address the issue of the deficit, Musk doubled down, calling the bill "a disgusting abomination". All this became too much for Trump. He finally entered the fight, repeating not just the claim that Musk was upset about losing the electric vehicle subsidies but that Trump had asked Musk to leave his position. Trump was saying that he had essentially terminated Musk's role. For someone with a sense of self-worth as large as Musk's, the suggestion that Trump had essentially told him "you're fired!" — for which Trump was famous on his reality TV show The Apprentice — would have outraged him. Not many people can fire the world's richest man. Donald Trump was now saying that he had. And so Musk went ballistic. What he did next crossed a line beyond which he could never salvage any relationship with Trump or this White House. He seems to have realised that himself, beginning his post on X with both a sense of threat and glee: As far as the White House was concerned, Elon Musk was now a political terrorist — he had gone rogue and was out of control, seemingly prepared to push for the destruction of Donald Trump. Signing off with "Have a nice day, DJT!" (Donald J Trump), Musk had linked Trump to an investigation into a criminal sex trafficking operation which involved many high-profile people and centred on Jeffrey Epstein, the now-dead US financier. Trump had famously been photographed with Epstein, but so had many people who had been part of the New York finance and celebrity worlds of the 1980s and 90s. Where this now goes is anybody's guess. Neither of these two men operates according to convention of generally accepted rules. US media have reported that various mediators were trying to set up a ceasefire phone call, but Trump has failed in his phone call attempts to get ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza and there's no suggestion that he will be any more successful in ending this "war" with Elon Musk. Musk has been on the inside of the Trump presidency — and the Trump family — for almost a year. He's had access to moments with the family when the cameras are not around and nobody is recording what is being said. If Donald Trump has personal, sexual or financial skeletons, Musk may well know what they are and where they are. Trump, for his part, has had insights into Elon Musk that few others have. If the reports of Musk being erratic and drug-fuelled during Trump's campaign are true, Trump would know about them. Like Musk, Trump has had insights into Musk's business and private life that few others would have had. The reason this battle is epic is that both men have raw power. Both men have the ability to destroy or wound each other. Both men are natural pugilists. Both men believe backing down is for wimps, part of the modern curse of "woke" culture. This is the ultimate clash of political power with financial power. In this modern age, which will win? Who will win? And which side does Vice-President JD Vance take? Does he show loyalty to his commander-in-chief, who hand-picked him to be his deputy? Or does he show loyalty to Elon Musk, one of the tech oligarchs with whom Vance has spent so much time cultivating? After all, these tech billionaires, who famously sat in the front row of Trump's inauguration in front of key figures who would sit in Trump's cabinet, can bankroll a "Vance 2028" campaign. Can Vance somehow keep both men onside when those two men are now clearly trying to wound the other? As to where this goes from here, Trump has become the most powerful man in the world — for the second time — by never taking a step back. Musk has become the most wealthy man in the world by overriding any obstacles put in his way. The key question now is this: Does the natural instinct of each man in this Shakespearean drama to attack their opponents and exact revenge when they feel they have been criticised outweigh the reality that each man is flirting with mutually assured destruction?
