If Patrick Bryant Isn't A Sexual Predator, Then Rep. Nancy Mace Is One Crazy Lady
On May 20, 2025, Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, stunned colleagues and the public during a House Oversight Subcommittee hearing on “surveillance in private spaces” by displaying a nude silhouette of herself, which she claimed was recorded without her consent by her ex-fiancé, Patrick Bryant. Mace alleged that Bryant, along with three other men, had engaged in sexual abuse, rape, and non-consensual filming of women, including herself. She presented the image as part of her push for stronger voyeurism laws, framing it as evidence of Bryant’s predatory behavior, which she claimed included over 10,000 videos of women in compromising positions. Bryant has denied the allegations, calling them “false and outrageous,” and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division has an ongoing investigation into the matter, though no charges have been confirmed.
Mace’s actions build on a pattern of explosive claims, including a February 10, 2025, House floor speech where she accused Bryant and the same three men of rape, sex trafficking, and other crimes, using graphic language and displaying their photos on a placard labeled “PREDATORS.” This speech, lasting over 50 minutes, was protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants members of Congress immunity from lawsuits for statements made during legislative activities. Mace leveraged this protection to make her allegations without immediate legal repercussions, though one of the accused, Brian Musgrave, filed a defamation lawsuit against her in March, arguing that her claims extended beyond the House floor through social media and other public statements, potentially testing the limits of the clause’s protection.
The House rules generally prohibit lawmakers from making personal attacks on other members during speeches, but they do not restrict comments about private citizens, allowing Mace to name and accuse Bryant and others without violating chamber decorum. Critics argue that Mace’s use of congressional privilege to air personal grievances, especially with unverified claims, risks undermining the integrity of the legislative process, turning it into a platform for vendettas rather than policy debate. Supporters, however, see her actions as a bold move to highlight systemic issues like voyeurism and sexual misconduct, though the lack of concrete evidence presented publicly raises questions about the appropriateness of using absolute freedom of speech in this manner, especially given the legal battles now unfolding outside the House chamber.
