Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · House Ethics Committee Investigation of Rep. Nancy Mace (OCC Review 25-5681) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Mace v. Bowman · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Mace v. Bryant · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
Mace's own defamation complaint puts her House-floor accusations, and the men's furious replies, into the public record
Suing Eric Bowman for defamation on May 12, 2025, Mace's complaint confirms she 'identified four individuals' from the House floor and reproduces, verbatim, the very accusations she calls false, including claims she steered VA contracts and 'destroy[ed] innocent men with zero evidence, zero charges.'
On May 12, 2025, Nancy Mace filed a defamation complaint against Eric Bernard Bowman in Charleston County (No. 2025-CP-10-02733). The suit is Mace's, and its allegations are hers. But by attaching Bowman's posts as exhibits and quoting them in the body, the complaint placed both her House-floor conduct and the accusations against her into a public court record.
On the floor speech, Mace's own pleading states:
"On February 10, 2025, Rep. Mace … gave a powerful speech from the House floor. In delivering this speech, Rep. Mace identified herself as the victim of sexual violence and assault … During her speech, Rep. Mace identified four individuals whom she understood to have taken part in or been aware of wrongdoing."
The complaint then reproduces the statements by Bowman that Mace alleges are false and defamatory. (They are Bowman's contentions, quoted by Mace so she can sue over them; nothing here treats them as true.) Among the posts the complaint quotes:
"@NancyMace has engaged in illegal hacking, disseminating classified information, embezzling public funds, and steering VA contracts to her close associates … blackmailed, conspired, and lied to law enforcement."
"Just as she betrayed [Speaker McCarthy], [Nikki Haley], her ex-staffers, her own sister, her ex-fiancé, and her former chief of staff, Daniel Hanlon … she's now destroying innocent men with zero evidence, zero charges."
The complaint also quotes Bowman tying Mace to specific VA contractors and asking, on the day of a Harvard appearance, that she be confronted with: "What contracts did you assist [a named VA contractor] in securing in your role as a member of the VA Technology Subcommittee?" and "How much money hit your account in February and why was it the same week you went public with your sex claims?" Mace's complaint flatly rejects the substance of all of it as "objectively and demonstrably false."
Two points the filing makes unavoidable for Mace. First, her own complaint confirms she used congressional floor privilege to name private individuals ("identified four individuals") in connection with alleged crimes. Second, to sue over Bowman's words she had to enter them into the record, so the lawsuit she chose to bring is itself the reason the accusations are now a permanent, searchable public document. Bowman denies liability and contends his statements are protected; that dispute is unresolved.
Source: Congresswoman Nancy R. Mace v. Eric Bernard Bowman, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2025-CP-10-02733, Complaint (Defamation Per Se), filed May 12, 2025. Public record via the S.C. Judicial Branch Public Index. See also Eric Bowman.
Read next
July 6, 2026 · DispatchPro Se: Nancy Mace has lost her lawyers again, this time in her own defamation suit against Eric Bowman
On July 6, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace filed a Motion to Lift Stay in her own defamation case against Eric Bowman, and she filed it pro se, representing herself. On the coversheet she crossed out the entire 'Plaintiff's Attorney' block by hand, wrote 'N/A,' and wrote 'Pro Se.' The motion states she 'is now proceeding pro se in this matter, as reflected in the Notice filed June 30, 2026.' It is the second time in this cluster of cases she has gone without counsel. The three attorneys who filed and briefed the Bowman case for her, local counsel Andrew B. Moorman, Sr. and the two Washington lawyers she brought in pro hac vice, William M. Sullivan, Jr. and Alex G. Anderson, are no longer her counsel of record. A separate notice filed the same day names all three and asks the Clerk of Court to remove them. The complete eight-page motion, and the counsel-withdrawal notice, are reproduced below. Allegations on every side are contested and unproven; Bowman denies Mace's claims and has moved to dismiss, and Mace denies Bowman's.
November 5, 2025 · DispatchMace announces intent to sue: 'SUING FOR DEFAMATION!!'
On Nov. 5, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace announced she had retained attorney Larry Klayman and intended to sue the Charleston Airport, American Airlines, and others for allegedly falsifying incident reports after her Oct. 30 confrontation. As of June 2026, no complaint had been filed in any court.
August 18, 2025 · Dispatch'Recuse themselves': Mace's official press release demands the prosecutor's removal and a state investigation into her
On August 18, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace issued an official congressional press release headlined 'Solicitor Scarlett Wilson Tipped Off Abuser and Leaked Evidence to Harm Victim,' demanding that the elected Ninth Circuit Solicitor recuse from 'any and all cases related to this victim,' be removed from all domestic-violence prosecutions, and face 'a full and immediate state investigation into Wilson's misconduct.' Wilson responded that prosecutors are 'required by law and ethical rules to provide all relevant information to the defense' and that she would not 'play a part in the circus sideshow.' The allegations on all sides are unproven and contested.
June 27, 2025 · DispatchMace's own motion shows she signed a quitclaim deed to her ex-fiancé on Feb. 13, 2025, three days after accusing him of crimes on the House floor
Mace's June 27, 2025 motion to enforce her settlement with Brendan (Patrick) Bryant documents that she executed a quitclaim deed transferring the beach house to him on Feb. 13, 2025, days after her Feb. 10 floor speech, while their property settlement was still being carried out.
September 4, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace loses in federal court: Bryant's suit accusing her of defamation and a blackmail conspiracy moves forward
Nancy Mace has lost in federal court. On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks rejected her pro se bid to move the case out of state court, ruling her removal untimely 'by several measures,' and remanded Berg v. Bryant to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. That sends Patrick Bryant's third-party case against Mace forward in state court, a case that accuses her of defamation and of a civil conspiracy to hack his phone and blackmail him into signing over property. The Court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation with modifications, overruled Mace's objections, denied her motion for oral argument, and terminated her duplicate federal case as moot. The ruling is procedural: it does not reach the merits, and Mace's immunity defenses travel with the case. The order (ECF No. 36) is reproduced below. The allegations are disputed and unproven; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
June 17, 2026 · DispatchA federal magistrate recommends sending the case Mace removed to federal court back to state court, finding her pro se removal 'untimely': 'it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court.'
On June 17, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation in the case Rep. Nancy Mace removed to federal court (Berg v. Bryant, docketed federally as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC), recommending that the case be remanded to state court. The recommendation is procedural, not a ruling on the truth of anyone's allegations: the magistrate found that Mace, who removed the case and briefed the remand motion pro se, was on notice the case was removable by December 12, 2025, so her January 29, 2026 removal of the entire case was untimely. A Report and Recommendation is not a final order; the parties have 14 days to object, and U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks will make the final decision. The underlying allegations are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.