In February’s Reputation Report, our team of experts analyse the Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni case, Donald Trump’s approach to diplomacy, and Apple’s push back on anti-DEI measures.
Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni:
Tim Jotischky, Divisional MD, Reputation
The extraordinary feud between Hollywood stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is gold dust for journalists, with its endless story twists and sub-plots. But, is litigating through the media likely to enhance the reputation of either protagonist?
Lively filed a lawsuit in December 2024 against her It Ends With Us co-star and his production company over alleged sexual harassment and other disturbing behaviour during filming. Baldoni hit back in January 2025, filing a $400m defamation claim against Lively, her publicist and her PR. For good measure, Baldoni’s crisis communications advisor has also filed a defamation claim against Lively over claims he had “weaponised a digital army” against her.
In February 2025, Baldoni took the unusual step of publishing a website detailing the latest court filings and a 168-page timeline, including alleged text message exchanges between himself and Lively. She then hit back with an amended lawsuit. The trial is due to take place in March 2026, but the judge has suggested that if both parties continue litigating in the press, he may bring it forward to avoid jurors being prejudiced.
Litigating through the media is always a high-risk strategy; judges don’t like it. But Baldoni’s advisors obviously felt attack was the best form of defence, fearing that accusations of sexual harassment could be career-ending if left unanswered. They are fighting in the court of public opinion and want the evidence to be in the public domain.
But if you are judged to be trying to manipulate public opinion it can undermine your strategy. A stream of negative stories about Lively, including suggestions she was using the film to promote her own brand rather than the issue of domestic violence, looked too obvious. If your advisors become part of the story your strategy has failed.
It Ends with Us has earned $280m at the box office since its release last August so the feud has not damaged the brand – it may even have boosted it. But the same probably won’t be true of the protagonists, whose careers will become defined by a court case that neither can afford to lose.
Trump and the language of diplomacy:
Robin Brant, Associate Director, Reputation
Commitment and respect. The foundation, you might argue, to any lasting relationship.
Keir Starmer made them the central plank of his approach to his first sit down with Donald Trump at the White House. It made for a very clear message from Prime Minister to President. Much of diplomacy is about signals and messages. Ultimately it is also about getting what you want, but more on that in a minute.
First though, the signals and messages. The decisive move to increase UK defence spending in the days before he got on the plane was a key policy moment. It also signalled crystal clear commitment to something Trump has long pressured others, especially European nations to do; take on more of the burden for defending your own back yard. The letter, signed off with his actual signature, from the King inviting the Donald for an unprecedented second state visit was – literally – a message conveying respect, wrapped up in Scottish pomp. So that’s Commitment and Respect. Clearly conveyed. The problem is the clarity of what came back.
Donald Trump’s approach to diplomacy – his approach to governing in general – is to reach for the megaphone, often in eviscerating tones. He can lie. (When asked, by my friend Chris Mason, about calling Ukraine’s leader a dictator he responded ‘Did I say that?’) The messages can be very, er, mixed. But that’s his style. It’s intentional. Throw a hundred radical, for some controversial, ideas at the wall and then pick the ones that look like they’ll stick. What came back on the key issue – Ukraine – was initially middling. Yes, we’ll have your back in a confrontation, but the Brits won’t need us. On the key request, to guarantee American military support as a ‘backstop’ against another Russian invasion, he was non-committal, before withdrawing support earlier this week. He thinks a minerals deal is what matters most.
On US/UK trade and that esoteric but strategically important deal over the Chagos Islands he sounded more supportive. But, in front of the cameras anyway, he’s broadly supportive. Not what you’d call clear signals and messages. Diplomacy is partly about how people get on. Donald Trump places a lot of stock in the Mano a mano. So, the bonhomie, the ‘what a beautiful accent’ do matter. But most of all judge him by what he does, not by what he says. Messaging is very important in how you communicate. Actions matter more.
Apple, Trump – and the battle for the soul of DEI:
Neil McLeod, Divisional MD, Corporate
In the controversial Trump-inspired Diversity, Equality and Inclusion pushback in corporate America, Apple – the world’s most valuable company – has taken a stand.
Following a short presentation made to the company, 97% of its shareholders voted to push back on a move on anti-DEI measures. It was not just a no vote but a line in the sand for its values and reputation, which will chime with its audiences.
In doing so, and underlining its own unique positioning, it has bucked the trend set by its Silicon Valley neighbours, including Meta, and some big name Wall Street banks.
In response, President Trump publicly called for Apple to ignore the vote and eliminate its DEI policies, describing them as detrimental to the country.
Perhaps this was all foreseen by Apple – just days before the vote and the President’s words, Tim Cook’s firm had announced a mammoth $500 billion plus investment and expansion programme in the US over the next four years.
There are growing concerns that this anti-DEI “movement” will extend into the UK, where there is arguably already push back and as PHA’s own research has shown, significant anti-ESG sentiment in sections of the media.
Tech workers union Prospect recently write to the Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee, urging it to examine fears that some American multi-nationals are using US policy changes to undermine their UK obligations. There will be various employment lawyers also keeping close watch.
The landscape here is different to the US, of course. But the move against DE&I in political and media circles means firms here could soon be faced with a choice on how they move forward with – or without – such policies.
Few other firms have the standing of Apple, but all bosses will have understanding of what makes stakeholders tick and what is important to its growth.
Not planning for outcomes and taking into account key stakeholder groups – as Apple has clearly done – may result in tougher reputational challenges for corporates which could be expensive to them in more ways than one.