<p>I outline a pragmatist account of the meaning grounds of interpretations. Interpretations, on this approach, have the meaning they have by virtue of the fact that their acceptance is regulated by a procedure that incorporates the Principle of Charity. I argue that pragmatism is not incompatible with thinking of interpretations as representational or fact-stating. I then argue that the pragmatist account sustains a strategy for supporting the recommendation to interpret charitably. This is so even though pragmatism doesn’t entail a lower bound to the reliability of Charity.</p>