Nancy Mace

Nancy Mace is a Republican U.S. Representative for South Carolina's 1st district, with Congress.gov listing her House service across the 117th, 118th, and 119th Congresses.¹ Her official House Clerk profile lists 119th Congress assignments on the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, including Armed Services subcommittees on Intelligence and Special Operations, Military Personnel, and Seapower and Projection Forces.²

Her UAP record is best understood as a public oversight role rather than as firsthand UAP testimony: the traceable record consists of open House hearings, submitted hearing materials, bill text, official press statements, and agency reports that set limits on what has been publicly verified.^345678910

  Oversight Position

Mace's committee assignments placed her inside both the general government-transparency lane and the national-security oversight lane that repeatedly surfaced in UAP hearings.² The relevance of those assignments grew after witnesses and members described UAP questions as overlapping with military flight safety, classified programs, contractor access, whistleblower protections, and the congressional ability to inspect classified spending.³⁴¹⁰

The public record does not show Mace presenting physical UAP evidence or claiming direct observation of a UAP.³⁴¹⁰ Her contribution has been procedural and interrogatory: she asked witnesses to identify where claims could be verified, which agencies or contractors should be called, what could only be discussed in a SCIF, and whether AARO was disclosing enough to Congress and the public.³⁴¹⁰

  2023 Public Questioning

At the July 26, 2023 House Oversight hearing "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency," Mace questioned Ryan Graves, David Fravor, and David Grusch in open session.³ Her questions moved from reporting culture and pilot safety to Grusch's claims about crash retrievals, alleged nonhuman biologics, documentary evidence, and the agencies or contractors that Congress would need to call in public or classified settings.³

The most important evidentiary limit in that exchange was visible in the transcript itself: Grusch said specific documentation would have to be discussed in a SCIF, and he offered to provide Mace a list of cooperative and hostile witnesses after the hearing rather than naming them in public.³ That made the exchange significant for public disclosure politics, but it did not convert Grusch's underlying allegations into open-record proof.³

  2024 Joint Hearing

On November 13, 2024, Mace presided over the joint House Oversight hearing "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth," which included Tim Gallaudet, Luis Elizondo, Michael Gold, and Michael Shellenberger as witnesses.⁴ The hearing record notes that Mace submitted a Christopher Mellon hearing letter and a document identified in the index as a Pentagon report on "Immaculate Constellation."⁴

Mace's opening statement framed the hearing around two answerable oversight questions: what government-funded UAP activity had produced, and how much taxpayer money had been spent.⁴ She also tied the issue to overclassification, the Defense Department, the intelligence community, AARO, and whether UAP information was being withheld from Congress and the public.⁴

Her questioning focused on the gap between claims and verifiable access.⁴ She asked Elizondo whether he had been read into the alleged Immaculate Constellation program, but he answered that he was not authorized to confirm or deny any ongoing or past special access program by name or trigraph.⁴ She then asked about foreign materiel exploitation, contractor specialization, flight-safety risk, how to encourage whistleblowers, and how the panel defined nonhuman biologics or nonhuman intelligence.⁴

The 2024 exchange shows why Mace's record is consequential but bounded: she used the chair's seat to put disputed claims, contractor questions, and classification barriers into the hearing record, while witness answers often stopped at authorization limits, source-protection limits, or personal belief.⁴ The open record therefore supports the fact of congressional inquiry, not a public confirmation that any alleged UAP program exists.⁴⁷

  Whistleblower and Transparency Legislation

The UAP Whistleblower Protection Act, H.R.10111 in the 118th Congress, was introduced on November 12, 2024 by Tim Burchett for himself, Mace, Anna Paulina Luna, and Eric Burlison.⁸ The bill text proposed whistleblower protections for federal personnel who disclosed the use of federal taxpayer funds to evaluate or research UAP material.⁸

Mace's office issued a November 15, 2024 statement after the Pentagon's UAP annual report, arguing that the report reinforced transparency concerns and citing 21 unexplained encounters near national security sites.⁵ The underlying FY2024 AARO report said AARO received 757 UAP reports during the covered period, resolved 118 cases to prosaic objects, found 21 cases meriting further analysis, and had discovered no evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology.⁶

  2025 Task Force Hearing

The House Oversight page for the September 9, 2025 hearing "Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection" lists the proceeding before the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets and names Jeffrey Nuccetelli, Alexandro Wiggins, George Knapp, Dylan Borland, and Joe Spielberger as witnesses.⁹ The Government Publishing Office hearing record preserves Mace's later exchange with Borland about his triangle-sighting claim, possible U.S. or foreign origin, AARO disclosures, whistleblower fear, SCIF limits, code-word compartmentalization, and black-budget visibility.¹⁰

That 2025 questioning again separated inquiry from proof.¹⁰ Mace acknowledged that some sightings can be debunked as balloons, drones, or other prosaic explanations, while pressing whether unresolved material and special-access compartmentalization prevented Congress from knowing what to ask for or where money was going.¹⁰

  Evidentiary Limits

AARO's 2024 historical review found no verifiable evidence that a U.S. government investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel had confirmed a UAP sighting as extraterrestrial technology.⁷ The same report said AARO had found no empirical evidence for a U.S. government reverse-engineering narrative, placing official DoD conclusions in direct tension with several witness claims aired in the House hearings.⁷

The strongest public claim about Mace is therefore narrow: she helped make UAP transparency, AARO performance, whistleblower protection, contractor access, and classified-program visibility recurring House oversight topics.^3458910 The available public record does not independently establish the existence of nonhuman craft, recovered biologics, a confirmed crash-retrieval program, or an officially acknowledged Immaculate Constellation special access program.³⁴⁷¹⁰

  References

  References

1. congress.gov ↩

2. clerk.house.gov ↩ ↩²

3. congress.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

4. congress.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵

5. mace.house.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³

6. media.defense.gov ↩ ↩²

7. aaro.mil ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

8. congress.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

9. oversight.house.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³

10. congress.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹