Realists and Kantian constructivists about normative practical reasons share the view that practical normativity is centrally about reasons. They disagree about what reasons are. Realists are factualists about reasons, while Kantian constructivists take reasons to be dependent on rational agency. In this paper, I put forward a view of practical normativity that involves normative facts as distinct from, and more fundamental than, reasons. I will argue for the view by applying Tyler Burge’s distinction between two types of warrant – entitlement and reason-based justification – to the practical case. And I will show how the distinction between normative facts and reasons allows us to reconcile key claims made by realists and Kantian constructivists, thus offering a way out of a longstanding impasse.