How has Serge Kovaleski publicly responded or described the incident since it occurred?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Serge Kovaleski has publicly pushed back on Donald Trump’s characterizations of their interaction, saying he does not recall any claim of “thousands” celebrating 9/11 and insisting the two men did know one another from earlier reporting, while otherwise remaining measured and largely out of the political fray in his public remarks [1]. His response has been a mix of a written statement about the underlying 2001 reporting and on-the-record corrections to Trump’s retelling, even as others — and Trump himself — offered competing narratives [1].
1. Kovaleski’s core public correction: “I do not recall…thousands”
Kovaleski’s most consistent public line has been to correct the substantive factual point Trump invoked: Kovaleski told CNN and other outlets that he did “not recall anyone saying there were thousands, or even hundreds, of people celebrating” the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey, repudiating the inflation Trump used to justify his comments .
2. He has insisted they knew each other, contradicting Trump’s denials
When Trump later claimed he had “no idea” who Kovaleski was, Kovaleski pushed back, saying they had met repeatedly while Kovaleski worked for the New York Daily News in the late 1980s and that he had interviewed and encountered Trump at news conferences — a rebuttal corroborated by colleagues and contemporary reporting [1].
3. A written statement about the original reporting, not the mockery
Part of Kovaleski’s public record is a written statement addressing how his 2001 reporting was being used in the 2015 exchange: reporters and the Trump campaign pointed to a September 18, 2001 piece he co-authored, and Kovaleski issued a statement clarifying what the article reported and what he did or did not recall, which became central to the dispute [1].
4. Personal demeanor and limited self-promotion in follow-up coverage
Several outlets noted Kovaleski’s restrained public posture after the incident; local reporting observed he did not seek to make himself the center of attention and, in at least one request for comment, did not engage in extended interviews, a silence some disability advocates interpreted as a personal choice rather than acquiescence . Colleagues and contemporaries publicly defended his professionalism and character while he focused on correcting the factual record .
5. The broader context Kovaleski emphasized: reporting versus political performance
Kovaleski’s public responses kept returning to the journalistic record — what was written in 2001 and what he remembered — rather than turning the episode into a long personal feud; that emphasis allowed news organizations and disability advocates to frame the story as both a factual dispute and an example of ableism in political rhetoric, even as Trump and his campaign offered competing explanations and denials [1].
6. Competing narratives and limitations of the public record
While Kovaleski has corrected the factual claims and said he and Trump had met, Trump’s camp continued to deny knowing him and portrayed Kovaleski as “grandstanding,” leaving the public to weigh contemporaneous reporting, corroborating witnesses, and Trump’s later statements; reporting shows corroboration of Kovaleski’s account of past interactions but the public record contains competing interpretations and political incentives on both sides . The available sources document Kovaleski’s written and on-the-record corrections about the 2001 article and his history with Trump, but do not show an extended public campaign of recrimination from Kovaleski beyond those clarifications [1].