Blake Lively ‘begging' Taylor Swift to ‘mend' their friendship after Justin Baldoni subpoena: Report
Amid the rumoured tensions between Blake Lively and Taylor Swift, a new report reveals that the Gossip Girl star is 'begging' the pop singer to become friends once again. The 35-year-old singer allegedly cut ties with A Simple Favor actress after being dragged into her legal battle with Justin Baldoni. However, the 37-year-old actress has tirelessly been reaching out to the Midnights hitmaker, according to Daily Mail.
'Even though Taylor has totally cut ties with her, Blake hasn't with Taylor,' a source told the outlet. '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.'
Despite the constant messages and voicemails, Swift 'hasn't responded to any of Blake's pleas' and has 'ignored all her groveling excuses.' 'The missives explain there must be some misunderstanding on Taylor's part and that she'd never do anything to harm their 10 years of closeness and personal secrets,' the source added.
Swift and Lively are allegedly no longer on speaking terms after the former was name-dropped in Baldoni's $400 defamation lawsuit against the latter and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. The 41-year-old claimed that his co-star used the singer's influence, referring to her as her 'dragon' to assert dominance.
'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,' the lawsuit said, per Page Six.
As a result, Baldoni's legal team subpoenaed Swift to testify as a witness in his and Lively's March 2026 trial. While the subpoena was dismissed weeks later, it damaged the Age of Adaline star's friendship with the Lavender Haze singer. According to a previous report by the outlet, Swift felt 'used' and 'doesn't appreciate being referred to as one of Blake's dragons.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Taylor Swift holds hands with Travis Kelce in NYC while her ex escalates drama with shady public comments
Taylor Swift flaunts love with Travis Kelce in NYC (Image sia PEOPLE) Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are keeping the summer romance alive in the most New York way possible — with quiet, fashionable, and very exclusive dinner dates. The high-profile couple was recently spotted enjoying a private evening out at San Vicente in West Village, joined by none other than Swift's brother, Austin. Tucked away in the club's ultra-discreet, no-photo interior, the trio 'sat alone quietly,' a source told Page Six, adding that 'no one bothered them.' Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce win the internet while her ex continues his messy meltdown For Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, both 35, privacy seems to be the new luxury. San Vicente, a members-only spot that recently opened its New York location, is already known for hosting Hollywood elite like Jennifer Aniston, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Prince Harry. It's also famed for enforcing a strict no-photos policy, making it a go-to for celebrities seeking refuge from the relentless gaze of paparazzi. The couple didn't just enjoy a dinner — they made a fashion statement. Swift arrived in a $3,490 pink-and-white Balmain houndstooth dress with gold chain straps and matching buttons, accessorized with a beige purse and Christian Louboutin heels. Kelce complemented her look in a crisp white short-sleeve dress shirt, black pants, and black loafers. Earlier in the week, they were seen stepping out hand-in-hand in matching white outfits, capturing attention yet again. Their recent city rendezvous follows a week spent in Nashville, where Swift not only showed up to support her NFL beau at his Tight Ends University event but also surprised everyone with an impromptu performance of 'Shake It Off' at the 'Tight Ends and Friends' benefit concert — her first public performance since the end of the blockbuster Eras Tour. That concert alone helped raise over $900K for charity, including Kelce's own foundation, 87 & Running. While their public appearances reflect joy and stability, a familiar ghost from the past seems determined to hover. Matty Healy, Swift's ex and frontman of The 1975, stirred headlines after throwing shade at her latest album The Tortured Poets Department during his Glastonbury set. 'I'm probably the best songwriter of my generation. The best, what do we say, A and gentlemen, is what I am,' Healy declared sarcastically, before launching into 'Chocolate. ' Though he later claimed he was joking, the timing didn't go unnoticed by Swifties. Despite the lack of a ring, speculation around a possible engagement continues to mount. Nilesh Rakholia, founder of Abelini jewelry, told Daily Mail, 'Knowing Taylor, the ring itself, or the way it's revealed, might contain subtle nods or 'Easter eggs' for her fans.' As they inch closer to their rumored two-year anniversary, Swift and Kelce seem unfazed by external noise — choosing instead to indulge in intimate dinners, public hand-holding, and quiet gestures of support that say more than any headline could. Whether wedding bells are on the horizon or not, the couple continues to write their love story one glamorous NYC outing at a time. Also Read: 'I did marry a farmer': Hailee Steinfeld wants to trade glam for a garden in dream farm life with Josh Allen Game On Season 1 continues with Mirabai Chanu's inspiring story. Watch Episode 2 here.
Mint
15 hours ago
- Mint
The Supreme Court Is Right to Respect Parents' Faith
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Here's why I think the Supreme Court might be on to something in its Friday decision allowing a group of Muslim and Christian parents to opt their young children out of public-school lessons that feature 'LGBTQ -inclusive texts': my wife and I sent our kids to private school. How does B lead to A? Let me explain. The case before the court, Mahmoud v. Taylor, arose from Montgomery County, Maryland, generally described as the most religiously diverse county in the United States. Part of that rich diversity will include a variety of views on gender and sexuality. When the school board realized that LGBTQ issues (and characters) were under-represented in the curriculum, it took a series of measures to present students with a richer spectrum of images and ideas. The original proposal included a provision under which parents harboring religious objections to the new materials could opt their children out. In the end, however, the opt-out was abandoned. Suit was filed on behalf of elementary school children by Muslim and Christian parents whose views on gender and sexuality skew traditionally religious. The parents didn't ask that the texts in question be banned. They asked that their kids might be excused. The school board responded that the materials did no more than expose the children to new ideas, and that in any case nobody was being coerced. The Supreme Court, by the now-familiar 6-3 vote, sided with the parents. Justice Samuel Alito's opinion for the majority goes on at length about the contents of the materials — 'at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender' one discussion guide explains; in another story the prince rejects the 'many ladies' who might rule beside him, and in the end falls in love with a (male) knight — but although I think the court reaches the right decision in the end, I wonder whether this long recital isn't wide of the point. The majority's view is that the lessons, in the end, violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment because the students are coerced; they have no choice but to view and listen to and discuss materials to which their parents have religious objections. I'm not at all sure, however, that coercion is the right First Amendment test, or, for that matter, that exposure equals coercion. But I'm equally unpersuaded by the argument that pooh-poohs parental fears, in which families struggling to preserve their own religions against the overweening tides of post-modernity are reduced to something like Kipling's 'lesser breeds without the law,' ignorant savages whose children the school must civilize. The right test is surely the extent to which the ability to raise children in one's chosen religion is burdened. And there our instinct under the Free Exercise Clause should in most cases be one of deference to the parents. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor presented what lawyers call a parade of horribles — possible bad consequences of the majority's rule — many of which were drawn from a brief written by people I know and admire. But friends may disagree. 'Teachers will need to adjust homework assignments to exclude objectionable material and develop bespoke exams for students subject to different opt-out preferences,' she writes. 'Schools will have to divert resources and staff to supervising students during opt-out periods, too, which could become a significant drain on funding and staffing that is already stretched thin.' Moreover, she continues, 'the majority's new rule will have serious chilling effects on public school curricula. Few school districts will be able to afford costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to administering impracticable notice and opt-out systems for individual students. The foreseeable result is that some school districts may strip their curricula of content that risks generating religious objections.' Let us concede that these consequences are undesirable. But will they all happen? An attractive possibility is that parental objections will turn out to be few, and easily managed; another is that reasonable people, working together, will find reasonable compromises. But if those possibilities seem like so much pie in the sky, we have a much bigger problem than the headaches of administrators charged with running the opt-out program. Because at that point, if parents will in fact seek exemptions willy-nilly for their children, we will have to admit that, at least in the eyes of many families, the public-school project has failed. And let's be clear about what that job is. It's educating the young, but it isn't just educating the young. It's working with families to help them raise their children. Schools shouldn't be competing with parents; they should be collaborating with them. This is particularly true when children are in elementary school, often taking their first steps into the world beyond the one their families have created. The Supreme Court's new test, with its implicit suggestion that coercion is found in exposure to materials that go against central tenets of parental religion, is more sledgehammer than scalpel. But if the instrument the majority wields is too blunt, the problem it's trying to solve is real. I quite recognize that we live at a time when advances on issues of gender and sexuality are not only under threat but, in some cases, being actively rolled back. But those battles should be fought on their own terms; when it comes to raising children, parental freedom is entitled to a wide berth. Which brings us back to how B leads to A. When our children reached school age, we decided on private rather than public education, even though the public schools in our community were top-notch academically. But we wanted more than academics. We wanted them to have an education that would reinforce rather than do battle with the values we sought to teach them at home. Not everybody can afford those choices; but the public schools should do their best to find ways to accommodate those who wish they could. And, no, my wife and I had no problem with Heather Has Two Mommies, back when that now quaint-seeming book was the big cultural battleground. But I've been writing about religious freedom for four decades, and I'm not about to argue that the parents should win only if I agree with them. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of law at Yale University and author of 'Invisible: The Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.' More stories like this are available on
Pink Villa
16 hours ago
- Pink Villa
Love Island USA Season 7 Episode 24: Release Date, Time, How to Watch, What to Expect and Who's at Risk of Elimination
Love Island USA Season 7 continues to shake things up with unexpected twists and bold eliminations. After a dramatic recoupling, Nic and Olandria were allowed back in the villa following the latest dumping. This move has already sparked discussions among fans who believe it was intended to add more tension and drama to the villa. In the last episode, six islanders faced elimination. The Casa Amor group saved Elan Bibas, while JD Dodard and Zac Weedworth were sent home. Meanwhile, the main island group chose to keep Olandria and Vanna Einerson, sending Coco Watson home. This resulted in four islanders leaving the show all at once. When will Love Island USA Season 7 Episode 24 be released? Love Island USA Season 7 Episode 24 will drop on Sunday, June 29, 2025. Fans in the U.S. can watch it at 6 p.m. PT or 9 p.m. ET. The new episode will continue to follow the aftermath of the latest recoupling and eliminations. The show is available to stream on Peacock, which holds exclusive streaming rights for Love Island USA Season 7. What to expect from episode 24 The next episode will reveal what's next for Nic and Olandria. Before pairing up, Olandria was confident about her bond with Taylor, while Nic felt secure about his connection with Cierra. However, fans think Taylor was never truly interested in Olandria. In a Reddit thread titled This is Amaya protecting Olandria against Clarke, one user wrote, "Taylor never liked Olandria, and it was obvious he was not feeling her or was attracted to her and was waiting for this moment." Another user added, "That's why I'm so upset at Taylor tbh. If Taylor would've honestly had a chat with Olandria about how he wasn't physically attracted to her around the same time he told Ace that, she could've still explored and made other connections." These comments suggest that viewers are dissatisfied with Taylor's handling of the situation, which may lead to further drama in Episode 24. Here's the cast of Love Island USA Season 7 Female Islanders: Chelley Bissainthe Huda Mustafa Olandria Carthen Isabella 'Belle-A' Walker Cierra Ortega Amaya Espinal Iris Kendall Hannah Fields Yulissa Escobar Male Islanders: Ace Greene Austin Shepard Taylor Williams Jeremiah Brown Nicolas 'Nic' Vansteenberghe Jose 'Pepe' Garcia Charlie Georgio Jalen Brown
