House Ethics Committee Probes Nancy Mace Amid Gubernatorial Bid

The 2026 South Carolina gubernatorial race has taken a dramatic turn as Rep. Nancy Mace, a leading Republican contender and current member of Congress, finds herself at the center of a high-profile federal ethics investigation. The bipartisan House Ethics Committee confirmed on January 16, 2026, that it is formally reviewing a referral involving Mace, transmitted by the Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC) on December 2, 2025. The committee’s next steps will be announced by March 2, 2026, just as the state’s political season heats up and Mace’s campaign faces mounting scrutiny.

In a statement released Friday, the Ethics Committee made clear that “the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee.” This procedural extension is not uncommon, but it signals that the committee believes the issues at hand merit closer examination, especially given their complexity and the public interest involved.

At the heart of the inquiry are allegations related to Mace’s lodging expenses and reimbursement practices during her time in Washington, D.C. According to congressional data cited by The Washington Post, Mace co-owns a $1,649,000 Capitol Hill townhouse purchased in 2021 with her then-fiancé, Patrick Bryant. In 2023, she expensed $27,817 for lodging—an average of more than $2,300 per month, with some months exceeding $3,000. Mace herself stated she had incurred over $100,000 in lodging expenses in D.C. but received only about $29,000 after taxes in reimbursements. “Do the math,” she remarked in a November press release.

The origins of the ethics probe are as tangled as the numbers. Mace has publicly framed the inquiry as a byproduct of personal vendetta rather than substantive misconduct. She alleges that her former fiancé, Patrick Bryant, submitted “fictitious documents” to the OCC, which she claims triggered the investigation. In a fiery November 21, 2025 statement, Mace declared, “Bryant is terrified he might go to jail. And if he does, my female constituents will be safer for it. This just goes to show how broken the system is when a predator can viciously go after his victims in this way and is permitted to do so regardless of the facts.”

Bryant, for his part, has denied these allegations and has filed a lawsuit against Mace, accusing her of fabricating sexual assault claims against him. The dispute between the two has spilled into both the courts and the public arena, with each side accusing the other of serious wrongdoing. The ongoing civil litigation, overseen by retired South Carolina circuit court judge Donald B. Hocker, includes a sexual-assault lawsuit filed in May 2025 by Alexis “Ali” Berg—allegations that closely mirrored Mace’s “scorched earth” speech delivered earlier that year on the House floor, in which she accused several men, including Bryant, of sexual misconduct. Judge Hocker has imposed a sweeping gag order in the case, attempting to rein in what he described as a spiraling public war between the parties.

The Ethics Committee’s federal review is only the latest in a series of legal and political challenges facing Mace as she seeks the governor’s mansion. Once hailed as a “change agent” within the South Carolina Republican Party, Mace’s campaign has increasingly been overshadowed by personal disputes, courtroom battles, and public confrontations that have blurred the lines between policy and personal grievance. According to FITSNews, her once-disciplined campaign has devolved into a “rolling public meltdown,” with poll numbers and fundraising suffering as a result.

Still, Mace’s defenders argue that she has complied with House ethics rules and that the probe is fueled by retaliation from personal adversaries. Her critics, meanwhile, emphasize the need for transparency and accountability, especially when questions arise about public officials’ expense claims. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s campaign weighed in, stating, “South Carolinians expect honesty, accountability, and integrity from those who seek public office. When an elected official becomes the subject of an ethics investigation, it raises serious and legitimate concerns that deserve transparency and answers.”

The process for handling such complaints is methodical. The OCC, an independent entity established to review allegations of misconduct involving House members and staff, assesses complaints and evidence before referring matters to the Ethics Committee if warranted. Once a referral is made, the committee has a limited window to act; if more time is needed, it must publicly disclose an extension and identify the member involved, as it has done with Mace. These extensions are routine and do not imply wrongdoing, but they do indicate that the committee believes further examination is justified.

Mace’s situation is further complicated by her own history of taking hardline stances against colleagues facing ethics questions. She previously attempted to censure Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills amid an ongoing ethics investigation, positioning herself as a champion of accountability. Now, some observers note the irony as she faces similar scrutiny.

The timing of the Ethics Committee’s review could not be more critical. The committee’s deadline for announcing its next steps falls just weeks before the filing period for South Carolina’s gubernatorial race opens. For Mace, the federal inquiry threatens to pull her campaign back into a legal narrative she cannot control, reinforcing perceptions of disorder at a time when Republican primary voters are signaling a desire for steadiness and focus.

For now, both the Ethics Committee and Judge Hocker’s court remain in deliberation, with no final rulings issued. The trajectory of Mace’s political fortunes is unmistakably tied to the outcome of these proceedings. What began as a campaign to disrupt the status quo has become a test of whether Mace can regain control of her own narrative and reassure voters of her fitness for higher office.

As the clock ticks toward March 2, the eyes of South Carolina—and the nation—remain fixed on Nancy Mace’s next move, waiting to see whether she can weather the storm of controversy or if the mounting legal and ethical questions will ultimately determine her fate.