Blake Lively Landing on TIME100 ‘Titan’ List Sparks Backlash, Called ‘An Insult’
When TIME Magazine released its annual TIME100 list—celebrating the most influential figures of the year—fans of film, fashion, and pop culture were stunned to see Blake Lively honored in the “Titan” category. Known for her striking red-carpet appearances, roles in television and film, and high-profile marriage to actor Ryan Reynolds, Lively has been a visible public figure for nearly two decades. However, this latest accolade has generated as much criticism as celebration, with some calling her inclusion “an insult” to those with more measurable accomplishments.
So what happened here? Why is Lively’s name creating such a firestorm, and what does this say about our evolving definitions of influence, power, and legacy?
A Surprising Inclusion
The “Titan” category on the TIME100 list is typically reserved for individuals whose contributions and influence are seen as massive forces within their industry or culture. Past honorees include figures like Elon Musk, Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, and Satya Nadella—people with transformative impact on business, tech, media, or global change.
When Blake Lively was named a “Titan” for 2025, it didn’t go unnoticed that her resume lacked a blockbuster hit or groundbreaking initiative in recent years. While she’s always been considered a style icon and a Hollywood fixture, critics quickly argued that her contributions do not measure up to others in the same category.
“Are we really putting Serena van der Woodsen next to tech CEOs and global activists?” one X (formerly Twitter) user wrote, referencing Lively’s iconic role in Gossip Girl. “This feels like the bar has been lowered so far it’s in the basement.”
The Case For Blake Lively
Despite the uproar, Lively’s fans and defenders were quick to point out that her inclusion isn’t entirely baseless. TIME’s editors highlighted her entrepreneurial spirit, philanthropy, and growing influence as a businesswoman.
In the past few years, Lively has launched Betty Buzz, a line of non-alcoholic mixers, which has been praised for its branding and market success. She’s also been involved in producing film projects, stepping behind the camera and advocating for women-led storytelling in Hollywood.
Moreover, her presence on social media has been strategic, witty, and surprisingly influential, creating a brand that goes beyond red-carpet fashion. She uses her platform to promote charities, elevate smaller brands, and advocate for causes like child protection and human rights.
As actress and friend Taylor Swift wrote in her tribute to Lively for the list, “Blake doesn’t need to be the loudest in the room to be one of the most powerful. She’s smart, curious, and always thinking one step ahead.”
But for many, none of this felt enough to justify her “Titan” label.
The Backlash: Style Over Substance?
Critics argue that Lively’s career, while successful, doesn’t rise to the same level as other Titans who are changing the world in tangible ways. Most of the backlash stems from the perception that TIME is leaning too far into celebrity culture—valuing fame and fashion over actual impact.
One online editorial called her placement “a tone-deaf move that undercuts the very purpose of the list,” citing that others who’ve broken barriers in science, education, or activism were ignored this year. Others complained that Lively has not led any major movement, nor has she helmed a project or company that significantly shifted an industry.
Some users also questioned if her relationship with Reynolds and proximity to other power players, like Taylor Swift, helped elevate her to the top of a list meant for game-changers.
“Blake Lively is beautiful, no doubt,” one critic wrote, “but being pretty, funny, and well-dressed shouldn’t qualify someone as a ‘Titan’ when activists are literally risking their lives for change.”
Celebrity Culture and Influence: A Shifting Definition?
The criticism also opens up a broader debate about what influence really means in today’s culture. As the lines between celebrity, business mogul, activist, and influencer blur, it becomes harder to measure worth using traditional standards.
Are we living in a time where influence is determined by visibility rather than impact? If someone can sell millions of products with a single Instagram post or raise hundreds of thousands for charity in a matter of days, does that not merit some form of recognition—even if they’re not inventing vaccines or negotiating peace deals?
TIME’s list has always been a mix of popular culture figures and less mainstream heroes. However, putting someone like Lively in the “Titan” category, as opposed to “Artists” or “Icons,” suggests a hierarchy that many feel she hasn’t earned.
The Power of Perception
Lively’s brand is one of carefully cultivated perfection: flawless hair, flawless dresses, flawless life. And while many admire that, others find it unrelatable or even alienating. In an era when audiences crave authenticity, some see her public image as too curated, too safe, and too far removed from the messy reality that most women face.
“Where’s the grit? The struggle? The innovation?” one blogger wrote. “Titans aren’t just polished—they’re revolutionary. I don’t see revolution here.”
It’s a harsh critique, but it underscores how perception often outweighs fact in celebrity culture. Even if Lively is making strategic moves behind the scenes, the absence of visible disruption weakens her Titan claim in the eyes of many.
Defenders Clap Back
Still, many have defended Lively against what they consider unnecessary hate.
“She’s a woman succeeding on her own terms in a male-dominated industry,” one fan tweeted. “Maybe that’s exactly what makes her a Titan.”
Others pointed to the double standards at play: male celebrities and businessmen are often rewarded for charisma or branding alone, while women are scrutinized more harshly.
It’s also worth noting that Lively has done all this while raising four children and maintaining a notoriously private personal life—something many see as a testament to her discipline and control in a world that constantly demands more.
“She’s not just a pretty face. She’s building something,” wrote one columnist. “If we don’t see that, maybe we’re the ones failing to redefine power.”
TIME Responds (Sort Of)
TIME Magazine has not formally responded to the backlash, but the piece written about Lively clearly aimed to highlight her behind-the-scenes influence. The article points to her leadership in the beverage space, her charitable partnerships, and her role in shaping entertainment narratives through production.
However, the editorial did little to shift public perception for those already convinced she doesn’t belong in the “Titan” pantheon.
It seems that, no matter how her influence is framed, many believe her power is still too soft, too quiet, and perhaps too curated to match the cultural heavyweights on the list.
Final Thoughts: Is the Backlash Fair?
Whether or not you believe Blake Lively deserves her “Titan” status may come down to how you define influence. Is it about visibility? Impact? Innovation? Disruption? Charm? Or a mix of all?
Lively clearly has her loyalists and her skeptics. She’s been a household name for years, has leveraged her fame into business and branding success, and continues to expand her creative role in Hollywood. But in a year marked by political upheaval, war, climate crises, and the rise of new global leaders, many feel that rewarding a glamorous actress for style and entrepreneurship feels oddly out of step.
The TIME100 list has always been part editorial, part PR, and part reflection of cultural priorities. Lively’s inclusion as a Titan might not be an error—it may be a signal. A signal that, for better or worse, we are living in an era where influence is increasingly defined not by what you build—but by who’s watching while you build it.
