["Political Psychology, EarlyView. ", "\nAbstract\nArmed groups operating in conflicts around the world publish statements of denial to dissociate themselves from acts of violence. Existing research argues that armed groups publish denial statements to avoid public backlash, favorably frame the conduct of their campaigns, and distance themselves from unsanctioned actions conducted by rank‐and‐file members. However, the broader psychological impact of denial statements on public perceptions remains unexplored. Investigating the effects of denial statements published by armed groups, we conducted a novel survey experiment with a national sample of 1616 adults in the United States. Participants were presented with a fictional attack attributed to an armed group by the government and randomly assigned to conditions in which the group denied, claimed, or remained silent about the attack. Our findings reveal that denials reduce perceived culpability in attacks, undermine trust in government, and alter emotional responses to violence. These results highlight how denial statements may serve as important rhetorical tools in armed groups' discursive repertoire. This study contributes to scholarship on the communication strategies of armed groups, psychological responses to violence, and the effects of militant discourse on public perceptions.\n"]