Reading Time: 3 minutes

Rumor has it that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are ironing out a prenup ahead of their summer wedding.

Naturally, fans are eager for details. But who pays for what is boring when people have this much money.

Is it true that Taylor could be barred from badmouthing him in song after a divorce?

Here’s everything that we know so far.

Is there a prenup?

According to reports, Taylor and Travis will be getting a prenup.

Many of their fellow Millennials — even those without so much as 1% of Travis’ net worth, let alone Taylor’s — opt to get prenups because it gives them power over their own property, rather than subjecting them to the whims of how property division is handled under divorce laws wherever they happen to live.

In this case, we’re talking about a guy with a solid 8-figure (and growing) net worth and a billionaire musician.

Taylor and Travis are, obviously, not making their prenup details public — and have not officially confirmed that it exists.

However, online speculation as to what the document may include and preclude has taken off on social media like wildfire.

As of this time, the prenup has not leaked.

Given that the only people who likely have access to such a document would be Taylor, Travis, and their extremely well-paid attorneys, we do not expect for that to change.

Speaking of attorneys, Page Six spoke to Sarah Luetto. She doesn’t represent either party, but her law firm deals extensively in marriage and family.

“Swift and Kelce may wish to include terms fostering confidentiality and privacy,” Leutto noted.

“This may include non-disparagement or non-disclosure terms related to their relationship,” she added.

Clauses that enjoin her from singing about him sound like a non-starter

Most of the time, we think as prenuptial agreements as being something that concerns money, property, and perhaps custody of children or pets.

Rumors have suggested that Travis’ attorney, negotiating on his behalf, might include a clause barring Taylor from singing about their relationship in the event of a breakup.

Luetto cautions that there are “some exceptions” to how enforceable certain provisions may be — even if both partners, at the time, agree to sign.

“In Taylor’s case, she would likely not want to include provisions limiting her from singing about her relationship in songs,” she reasoned.

Luetto explained: “Particularly since there is always so much speculation about the subjects of her songwriting.”

For years, prenups were used as a plot device on television — most often, as a way for a rich husband’s evil family to ensure that a protagonist doesn’t steal their fortune despite stealing their son’s heart.

In reality, they are a solid way to make sure that both parties agree to who gets, say, an heirloom piece of jewelry or an expensive passion project in the event of a divorce. If the prenup is carried out the right way, that is.

The right way for a prenup to come about involves attorneys for both parties. In the case of wealth disparity, the monied party pays for both. The attorneys work out the arrangement based upon their clients’ wishes, ensuring that divorce doesn’t mean either party getting robbed — or impoverished.

Most places have laws that would more or less allow for fair division for most couples. But why take that chance?

As Taylor and Travis iron out the final details before their nuptials, the prenup is probably not their main concern. And, in the absence of concrete evidence, it probably shouldn’t worry Swifties, either.