Fact check: Did Nancy Pelosi or her team respond to Charlie Kirk's comments on the attack?

1. What people are claiming, boiled down to essentials — clear, testable assertions that matter

The primary claims in circulation are threefold: first, Nancy Pelosi personally condemned the assassination of Charlie Kirk and urged an end to political and gun violence, often referencing her husband’s prior assault as context; second, that Pelosi’s remarks were part of a broader bipartisan chorus condemning the attack; and third, that at least some articles covering the killing either do not document a Pelosi or Pelosi-team response or explicitly say they found no record of Pelosi responding to Kirk’s own remarks about the attack. The first two claims are supported by multiple accounts that quote Pelosi or attribute statements to her at events; the third claim points to reporting gaps or different editorial focuses that omitted or did not verify a Pelosi-team reply ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. These are concrete, verifiable assertions about who spoke, what was said, and which outlets recorded it.

2. Where and when Pelosi’s statements appeared — anchoring the timeline and venue

Several pieces report Pelosi speaking out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, with published instances dated across September 10–12, 2025, indicating rapid public reaction. Pelosi’s condemnations were attributed to remarks that stressed rejecting political violence and ending gun violence, and reporters noted she referenced her husband Paul Pelosi’s 2022 attack when making the point, suggesting she framed the event through personal experience at public appearances in Baltimore County and other venues ^{[1] [2] [3]}. These reports present Pelosi as an individual actor issuing moral and policy-focused responses, not as a surrogate or staff statement; however, the coverage varies in whether it quotes full statements, paraphrases, or characterizes them as part of a bipartisan response.

3. Coverage that did not record Pelosi’s team replying — explaining the reporting divergence

Other contemporaneous reporting that focused on the broader political fallout and calls to temper violent rhetoric makes no specific mention of Pelosi or her staff responding to Charlie Kirk’s own comments about the attack, thereby creating a contrast in the record. These stories emphasized reactions from multiple political leaders and the national conversation about civility and guns, but either did not find or did not report a Pelosi-team response directed at Kirk’s statements or social-media commentary about the incident. The absence of mention in some outlets can reflect differences in editorial priorities, available press materials at the time of reporting, or choices about which reactions to cite in a piece primarily about national tone rather than cataloguing every individual response ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Reconciling the different accounts — what the sources collectively show and where ambiguity remains

When the reporting is read together, the collective record shows Pelosi publicly condemned the violence and urged unity and decreased political vitriol; multiple outlets attributed such comments to her and placed them in the context of bipartisan condemnation ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Simultaneously, several reports that catalogued reactions to the killing either omitted Pelosi or explicitly noted no Pelosi-team response to Kirk’s comments, which introduces ambiguity about whether there was a targeted reply from Pelosi or her staff specifically addressing Kirk’s own public statements about the attack. The divergence likely comes down to scope: some pieces recorded Pelosi’s general condemnation, while others were looking specifically for a reply to Kirk’s remarks and did not find one ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Bottom line for the record and what to watch next — clarity, gaps, and next reporting steps

The clearest takeaway is that Nancy Pelosi did speak publicly condemning the assassination and calling for an end to political and gun violence, and that multiple outlets reported those statements soon after the attack ^{[1] [2] [3]}. What remains unsettled in the available reporting is whether Pelosi or her team issued a deliberate, direct response to Charlie Kirk’s own comments about the attack; some coverage that surveyed reactions did not find or include such a reply ^{[4] [5]}. For definitive confirmation, look for a direct press release, a full transcript of Pelosi’s remarks, or a statement from Pelosi’s office specifying a reply to Kirk’s comments; absence of such documentation explains the reporting divergence and is the most plausible reason for the mixed record presented here.