Blake Lively’s ‘Philanthropic’ Faux Pas: How Her PR Disaster Exposed a Manufactured Legacy

Blake Lively’s name has recently been added to Time magazine’s prestigious 100 Most Influential People list for 2025. While the recognition might seem like an achievement on the surface, it has sparked controversy, with many questioning the authenticity of her claim to fame.

Amid public outrage, it was none other than Angelina Jolie who made a statement that exposed Lively’s ill-constructed image. In just one sentence, Jolie sent shockwaves through Hollywood, casting a stark contrast between the two actresses and their contributions to society.

Blake Lively’s journey into the limelight has been marked by a series of PR stunts, each more questionable than the last. Her recent inclusion in Time’s Most Influential list is being criticized for one reason: it appears to be an outcome of her carefully cultivated image, not her genuine contributions.

The backlash started after Lively’s campaign, Homebound, launched with soft pastel visuals and soothing voiceovers, was seen as an attempt at recreating the philanthropic work of Angelina Jolie.

However, the issue arose when it became clear that Lively’s campaign borrowed heavily from a 2019 initiative by Jolie for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The resemblance wasn’t coincidental—it was a blatant act of plagiarism.

The Homebound campaign’s tagline, “Rebuilding what’s been broken one voice at a time,” was lifted word-for-word from Jolie’s 2019 refugee efforts, sparking outrage among those who recognized the theft. Jolie had been funding and working with the very refugee communities that Lively was now “photographing” for her campaign. Jolie’s approach was heartfelt, genuine, and rooted in years of tireless advocacy.

Lively’s, on the other hand, was seen as a weekend photo-op, exploiting the suffering of those who had been aided by Jolie’s work for over half a decade.

As the online outrage grew, a source revealed that Jolie herself was livid about Lively’s attempt to profit off her legacy. The UN even intervened after receiving complaints about Lively’s team lifting the entire campaign concept.

The website for Homebound suddenly went under maintenance, and the social media posts were deleted, signaling a desperate attempt to erase the evidence. But in today’s digital age, nothing truly disappears. Screenshots of the campaign’s similarities to Jolie’s work continued to circulate, and Lively’s reputation began to unravel.

The controversy around Lively’s so-called philanthropic efforts was compounded by her previous blunders, including her infamous plantation wedding to actor Ryan Reynolds.

The couple chose to marry at the Boone Hall Plantation in South Carolina, a venue with a history of slavery. The backlash was swift, and though the couple donated money to the NAACP in an attempt to appease critics, the damage was done. The optics of the wedding were inescapable, and Lively’s handling of the situation only further damaged her public image.

Lively’s PR team attempted to fix her public perception with a donation, reportedly between $200,000 and $2 million, but many felt the money was simply an attempt to erase her past mistakes.

This donation came after years of criticism for the plantation wedding, and it’s questionable whether it was a genuine act of philanthropy or just a band-aid for a much deeper issue.

What’s more shocking is that, despite Lively’s numerous missteps, Time magazine decided to include her in their Most Influential list, placing her in the same category as individuals like Serena Williams and Simone Biles. This, according to critics, was not only insulting but also a dangerous move by the magazine.

To label someone who has been involved in so many PR disasters as an “influential person” seems to diminish the hard-earned accomplishments of those who truly deserve the recognition.

In stark contrast, Angelina Jolie’s name has remained synonymous with genuine humanitarian work. Jolie has spent decades in war zones, advocating for refugees, and using her platform to make a real difference.

Her efforts have earned her recognition globally, not because she seeks the spotlight, but because she quietly and diligently works to improve the lives of those who need it most.

When Jolie speaks, people listen—whether it’s at the United Nations or in a refugee camp, her words carry weight. This is the legacy that Lively’s manufactured campaign and carefully timed donations could never hope to match.

The most telling moment came when Jolie made a subtle but sharp remark during a public event: “There’s a difference between telling a story and stealing someone else’s voice.” This sentence, delivered with poise and confidence, was all it took to send Lively’s reputation into a tailspin. The room fell silent as Hollywood realized just how hollow Lively’s public persona had become.

While Lively continues to attempt to build a legacy through photo shoots and viral Instagram posts, Jolie’s legacy is one of action—actual, meaningful change that has impacted millions of lives. Jolie’s humanitarian work has earned her the respect of world leaders and global organizations.

Meanwhile, Lively’s work feels more like a carefully constructed brand campaign, devoid of the authenticity that Jolie’s work exudes.

In the end, Blake Lively’s inclusion in Time’s Most Influential list serves as a reminder of how easy it is to manipulate public perception with the right PR strategy. However, no amount of money, donations, or glamorous photo shoots can cover up the truth. Jolie’s single sentence exposed Lively’s efforts for what they really were—a cheap imitation of real influence.

As Hollywood continues to move away from Lively, unfollowing her on social media and distancing themselves from her brand, it’s clear that authenticity and hard work still matter.

One sentence from Jolie did what years of bad PR and money couldn’t—it shattered the illusion and left Blake Lively standing alone in the wreckage of a reputation she never truly earned.

Blake Lively may have tried to buy her way into a legacy, but true influence can’t be purchased—it has to be earned.