An Independent Public RecordWednesday, June 17, 2026

MACEOPEDIA


The Public Record

← Back to Dispatches
Dispatch

While under the gag order, Mace's congressional office sends a mass newsletter about the case: 'I WILL NOT be silenced.'

On December 1, 2025, while the Berg v. Bryant gag order was in effect, a mass email newsletter from Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional office, headlined 'Rep. Nancy Mace says 2 more women accuse her ex-fiancé of abuse,' named Patrick Bryant, recited unproven allegations, and declared 'I WILL NOT be silenced.' Bryant and Bowman's January 12, 2026 contempt motion attaches the newsletter as Exhibit 8, contending it violated the gag order.

The December 1, 2025 mass email newsletter from Mace's congressional office, attached as Exhibit 8 to the January 12, 2026 contempt motion
Photo: Rep. Nancy Mace congressional office / contempt motion Exhibit 8. Source

On November 26, 2025, Judge Donald B. Hocker of the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit, entered a sua sponte gag order in Berg v. Bryant, Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124. The order barred all parties and their agents and attorneys from "Making or publishing any comment about any aspect of this case … via oral, written, social media, text or any other forms of communication" and from commenting about "any party or attorney to this case or anyone connected to this case." It also prohibited "publishing, transmitting, posting or sharing" related materials.

On December 1, 2025, five days after the gag order was entered, a mass email newsletter was sent from Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional office. The newsletter was headlined "Rep. Nancy Mace says 2 more women accuse her ex-fiancé of abuse" and named Patrick Bryant. It stated that "Two additional women have come forward to report alleged abuse by Patrick Bryant" and declared:

"I WILL NOT be silenced. I will fight for you."

The newsletter also stated that "Patrick Bryant and his attorneys continue to harass his victims for doing what's right" and urged potential witnesses to contact Mace's office.

The contempt motion's account

On January 12, 2026, plaintiffs Patrick Bryant and Eric Bowman filed an "Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt Against Nancy Mace" in Berg v. Bryant. The motion attaches the December 1 newsletter as Exhibit 8 and contends that it violated the gag order by naming and disparaging the parties and commenting on the case while the order was in effect.

The newsletter is shown below, as it appears in the contempt filing:

The December 1, 2025 mass email newsletter from Rep. Nancy Mace's congressional office, announcing additional allegations against Patrick Bryant and declaring 'I WILL NOT be silenced,' attached as Exhibit 8 to the January 12, 2026 contempt motion in Berg v. Bryant The December 1, 2025 newsletter from Mace's congressional office, as Exhibit 8 to the January 12, 2026 Order to Show Cause and Motion for Civil Contempt Against Nancy Mace in Berg v. Bryant (No. 2025-CP-10-03124).

The full contempt motion, including all exhibits, is available here.

Mace's position

Mace has disputed both the contempt motion and the validity of the gag order itself. In a January 21, 2026 letter to Judge Hocker, filed on the state docket and attached as an exhibit to her federal removal filings, she argued that the order is "overly broad, unconstitutional, and unenforceable, particularly as applied to a sitting member of the U.S. Congress and leading candidate for Governor of South Carolina." She simultaneously moved the contempt proceeding to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and declared: "I will not be SILENCED." The full letter is reproduced in the dispatch "Kangaroo Court … I will not be SILENCED".

The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Case No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and related actions, and a separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation. The allegations in the newsletter are unproven and contested. Bryant denies them; Mace denies Bryant's claims; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. The gag order's constitutionality is itself disputed and has not been ruled upon. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For background on the parties see People in the Public Record.

Sources & related coverage: