Taylor Swift Texts Exposed as Blake Lively Power Play Against Justin Baldoni Unravels

Hundreds of newly unredacted court documents have upended the public narrative surrounding It Ends With Us. The filings lay out private messages and internal exchanges that sharply contradict how Blake Lively and Taylor Swift later described their roles. Rather than evidence of fear or misconduct, the documents point to early coordination, strategic pressure, and a deliberate effort to assert control over a film that was already underway. The language is blunt, the timing is inconvenient, and the claims now facing scrutiny cut to the heart of who was really driving events behind the scenes.

The Texts lay Bare Early Intent

The documents confirm that on April 12, 2023, Lively reached out to Swift for help, mocking Justin Baldoni as “this doofus director of my movie” and a “clown who thinks he’s a writer.” The quoted language appears in the exhibits. What Lively disputes is not the wording, but the meaning attributed to it.

According to the filings, Lively sought Swift’s backing for a revised script before Baldoni had signed off. She later argued that Swift had the option to read the pages, though she also suggested endorsement did not require it. The tone is important because the texts do not describe fear, discomfort, or allegations of misconduct. They describe ridicule, confidence, and control.

That theme deepens when Swift allegedly replied, “I’ll do anything for you,” before attending a meeting at Lively’s apartment where the revised draft was endorsed. Lively later praised Swift as “epically heroic,” boasting that the “clown” had fallen for parts of the presentation while still resisting. The filings note that Lively disputes the interpretation, not the existence, of these messages.

Power Consolidated Behind the Scenes

By mid-April, Baldoni told Lively he liked the revised scene and stressed that he would have done so without outside pressure. Lively responded by likening herself to a protected princess, with Swift and Ryan Reynolds cast as her “dragons.” That phrase appears in the documents. Lively points the court to the wider context, which includes her claim that everyone would benefit from those relationships.

The filings then track a steady push for control. Lively told friends, including Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, that she rewrote and restructured the script and directed every actor. She repeatedly described Baldoni as a “chaotic clown,” not as a threat. That distinction undermines later attempts to reframe the dispute around safety rather than authority.

On April 26, 2024, Lively and Swift discussed using Swift’s music in the trailer. Swift allegedly observed that if Baldoni were strategic, he would block it, because her involvement gave Lively leverage. Lively agreed, calling his decision to allow it “stupid” and describing it as his only chance to appear to have an upper hand.

Audience testing later showed Baldoni’s cut performing better than Lively’s. Lively rejected the result, stating that she, Colleen Hoover, Swift, and Sony were aligned behind her version. She also sought changes to credits and billing. The requests were granted. Whether they are labelled demands or requests, the outcome was the same.

Advance Knowledge and Collapsing Credibility

The most damaging material arrives at the end of the timeline. The filings state that on December 4 and 5, 2024, Lively and Swift privately discussed a forthcoming article at the New York Times. Swift allegedly wrote that Baldoni “knows something is coming because he’s gotten out his tiny violin.” Lively disputes aspects of the timing and framing, but again does not deny that the quoted language appears in the record.

If the dates hold, they raise uncomfortable questions about foreknowledge and fairness. Baldoni’s team received limited time to respond before publication. Publicly, Swift later presented herself as distant from the situation. Privately, the texts suggest awareness well in advance.

Public reaction has been swift and unforgiving. Much of it centres on the contrast between Swift’s long-standing advocacy for artistic ownership and her apparent support for sidelining another creator. Sympathy has gathered around Baldoni, whose restraint now stands in sharp contrast to the contempt expressed behind closed doors.

Final Thoughts

The issue here goes beyond sharp language. The documents show influence applied early, repeatedly, and with confidence. They show mockery where later narratives suggested fear, and coordination where coincidence was later implied. Notably, the texts contain no allegations of sexual harassment or predatory behaviour. Blake does not describe an abuser. She dismisses him as a “clown” and a “doofus.” If a friend were facing genuine harassment, control of a project would be secondary to confronting the abuse itself. Instead, the record points elsewhere.

So far, this is damaging evidence against claims that no effort was made to rally celebrity allies, seize control of a film that was not hers, and push a director out of his role. Courts will decide the legal questions in time. The reputational fallout, however, is already unfolding, driven by words preserved in black and white, with more documents still to come.