(CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA) Rep. Nancy Mace said on November 6, 2025, she plans to file a defamation lawsuit against Charleston International Airport, American Airlines, airport chief executive Elliott Summey, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, at least three law enforcement officers, and an American Airlines gate agent, alleging they conspired to create and circulate false incident reports about her conduct during an altercation at the airport on October 30, 2025. The Republican congresswoman said the reports were “fabricated” and “constitute defamation, violated her civil rights, and interfered with her campaign” for governor, setting up a high-stakes legal and political clash centered on one of the state’s busiest travel hubs.
The announcement escalates a dispute that began as a tense encounter in a concourse and now threatens to spill into court as a defamation lawsuit pitting Nancy Mace against airport officials, airline staff and law enforcement over what she says are “deliberately falsified” accounts of her behavior. Mace has not yet filed the complaint but outlined her targets and claims, saying she would seek damages and a full public correction. Her attorney, Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and a veteran of high-profile conservative litigation, said Mace was
“subjected to a calculated and coordinated effort to malign her character through deliberately falsified documentation.”
According to a police report from the incident, officers described Mace as “very irate,” accused her of “loudly cursing,” and said she made “derogatory comments” about their department after a misunderstanding over a planned security escort. The report states she arrived late for her scheduled escort and, upon meeting officers, “immediately began loudly cursing and making derogatory comments to us.” In one exchange described in the report, Mace told officers, “We would never treat Tim Scott like this,” invoking the name of South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. These quoted phrases from the report now sit at the center of her claim that the incident narrative was engineered to damage her reputation.
Mace did not retreat from her frustration when she spoke publicly after the confrontation. At a press conference, she confirmed she “confronted” airport employees.
“Did I drop an f-bomb? I hope I did. Did I call them incompetent? If I didn’t, they absolutely earned it,”
she said, arguing that the problem was not coarse language but a failure by airport officials to provide proper security to a sitting member of Congress. She said she has sent a memo to Transportation Security Administration Deputy Administrator Adam Stahl urging a review of protocols covering lawmaker escorts and coordination at Charleston International Airport, and pointed to the TSA’s authority over airport security operations as a reason to reexamine procedures. The Transportation Security Administration oversees screening and security practices nationwide.
Airport leadership responded by standing behind their police and staff. Elliott Summey, CEO of Charleston International Airport, defended his officers in a statement that emphasized routine professionalism.
“The men and women of our police department demonstrate professionalism, vigilance and dedication every day as they carry out their mission to serve and protect,”
Summey said. The airport has not publicly described the altercation beyond the contents of the report, but the chief executive’s remark signals the agency’s stance as it braces for litigation and media scrutiny.
The politics are immediate. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, a Republican and Mace’s likely opponent in the 2026 race for governor, is among the individuals she named as potential defendants. Mace linked the disputed incident reports to broader claims that “violated her civil rights, and interfered with her campaign,” suggesting that the controversy could shape the statewide contest as it unfolds. Wilson did not respond within the materials provided, but his inclusion highlights how a confrontation at Charleston International Airport has become a flashpoint in state politics, drawing in law enforcement, airline staff and a statewide elected official.
Mace’s legal demands leave little ambiguity. She is seeking
“damages for defamation per se and reputational harm, as well as a full public correction and/or retractions for the allegedly false reports”
from the airline, airport personnel, and police officers involved. Defamation per se refers to statements considered inherently harmful to reputation, such as accusations that impugn a person’s integrity or professional fitness. Legal experts say that for a public official to prevail, the law requires proof that the statements were false, caused reputational harm, and were made with “actual malice,” meaning knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. That standard, developed in case law, is designed to balance free speech and robust reporting about public figures with protections against knowingly false or recklessly untrue claims.
The underlying confrontation on October 30, 2025 appears to have begun with confusion over a scheduled security escort. The police report states that Mace arrived late, which the document describes as precipitating the encounter. Officers wrote that she “immediately began loudly cursing and making derogatory comments to us,” and characterized her as “very irate” and “loudly cursing,” details that Mace says were fabricated or exaggerated. One specific phrase, “We would never treat Tim Scott like this,” attributed to Mace in the report, has also fed political reaction, with Senator Tim Scott himself weighing in publicly afterward.
“It is never acceptable to berate police officers, airport staff, and TSA agents who are simply doing their jobs, nor is it becoming of a Member of Congress to use such vulgar language when dealing with constituents… We work for them, not vice versa,”
Scott said in a statement supporting airport police.
Inside the Lowcountry, where Charleston International Airport serves as a gateway for millions of travelers and a workplace for hundreds of staff, the episode has drawn swift community response. Over 60 leaders across the region signed a letter supporting the airport after the incident, signaling institutional backing for its police and management as the political pressure rose. That support could matter if the dispute proceeds to depositions and discovery, when airport personnel may be asked to provide records and testify about procedures for escorting federal officials and handling high-profile passengers.
Mace’s team frames the coming defamation lawsuit as a fight over truthfulness in official documentation and the impact on her political standing. Larry Klayman, her attorney, cast the controversy as intentional character assassination by multiple actors. He said Mace was
“subjected to a calculated and coordinated effort to malign her character through deliberately falsified documentation,”
language that speaks to the “actual malice” hurdle she must clear as a public figure. In her telling, the defendants include not only the airport and American Airlines but also specific individuals — Summey, Wilson, at least three law enforcement officers, and an airline gate agent — who she says took part in producing or circulating the disputed account.
Charleston International Airport, set north of downtown in North Charleston, has navigated the tightening of security protocols common to U.S. airports, where coordination among local police, the TSA and airlines is routine. Mace’s memo to TSA Deputy Administrator Adam Stahl underscores the overlapping responsibilities: airports own facilities, local police enforce laws, airlines manage passengers, and the TSA sets federal security policy. By calling for a review, Mace is pressing not just her personal case but also a reassessment of how escorts for members of Congress are scheduled, communicated and delivered on the ground at Charleston International Airport.
The precise scope of Mace’s defamation claims will become clearer if and when she files in court. Her public statements indicate two pillars: first, that the report’s characterizations — “very irate,” “loudly cursing,” and “derogatory comments” — are “fabricated,” and second, that the circulation of those statements was part of a “coordinated effort” among airport, airline and law enforcement personnel. The remedy she seeks includes money damages and a “full public correction and/or retractions” from the entities and individuals involved. If a complaint is filed, it would likely list specific passages and attributions in the report, the individuals responsible for drafting and sharing it, and the points at which Mace alleges falsification occurred.
For the airport, Summey’s defense of his officers suggests an institutional posture that the police acted appropriately.
“The men and women of our police department demonstrate professionalism, vigilance and dedication every day as they carry out their mission to serve and protect,”
he said, a formulation that asserts routine standards rather than engaging the report’s detailed claims. American Airlines, named as a defendant-to-be along with one of its gate agents, faces questions about its role in the escort mix-up and any involvement in drafting or distributing the incident narrative. Neither entity provided additional detail in the materials available here beyond Summey’s statement and the police report excerpts.
The stakes for Mace go beyond the legal threshold. She is in the early stages of a gubernatorial campaign where her principal Republican rival, Alan Wilson, now appears on her potential defendants list. Naming Wilson ties the case directly to the race, transforming a clash at a departure gate into an issue that could shadow debates, fundraising pitches and endorsements. Her insistence that the incident reports “interfered with her campaign” signals that she will argue reputational damage among donors and voters — a typical component of defamation damages — and try to connect it to the election calendar.
Defamation law makes sharp distinctions for public officials, and attorneys watching the case say courts require clear evidence that the speakers knew allegations were false or proceeded with “reckless disregard” for whether they were true. In practice, that often means internal emails, drafts, or testimony indicating doubts about accuracy that were ignored or overridden. Mace has not detailed the documents she expects to rely on, but her framing of a “calculated and coordinated effort” points to an anticipated effort to collect communications among airport leadership, airline staff and police who were on duty on October 30, 2025.
Public reaction has ranged from sharp criticism of Mace’s language to sympathy for her complaint about security arrangements. Scott’s rebuke —
“It is never acceptable to berate police officers, airport staff, and TSA agents who are simply doing their jobs, nor is it becoming of a Member of Congress to use such vulgar language when dealing with constituents… We work for them, not vice versa”
— gave momentum to those defending airport personnel. Mace’s own words from the press conference —
“Did I drop an f-bomb? I hope I did. Did I call them incompetent? If I didn’t, they absolutely earned it”
— underline her refusal to apologize while focusing attention on whether the incident report crossed the line from characterization to defamation. For voters and travelers alike, the confrontation laid bare a frayed moment at Charleston International Airport and the fragile expectations around how elected officials should interact with public-facing workers.
The timeline is stark. On October 30, 2025, the clash at Charleston International Airport erupted over what Mace’s team calls a misunderstanding around a planned escort. One week later, on November 6, 2025, she went public with her intent to sue, naming the airport, American Airlines, Summey, Wilson, at least three law enforcement officers, and an airline gate agent. In between, the airport gained the written support of more than 60 Lowcountry leaders, and Scott publicly backed airport police. As of her announcement, Mace had not filed the lawsuit, leaving both sides to maneuver in the court of public opinion while lawyers prepare the next steps.
The venue also matters. Charleston International Airport is a daily crossroads for constituents, state officials, and national political figures flying in and out of the Lowcountry. Any adjustments that stem from Mace’s demand for a security review could influence how escorts are scheduled and staffed for members of Congress and other dignitaries across South Carolina. If her memo to TSA leadership prompts federal guidance, airports statewide could see clarifications or changes in how local police, the TSA and airlines coordinate officer assignments and passenger movements, with ripple effects for working officers and airline staff.
For now, the dispute centers on words attributed to Mace — “very irate,” “loudly cursing,” “derogatory comments,” and “We would never treat Tim Scott like this” — and words she says were “fabricated” to smear her character. It also hinges on words she owned at a microphone:
“Did I drop an f-bomb? I hope I did.”
Between those accounts lies the question that a defamation lawsuit is designed to test: who said what, when, and with what knowledge about whether it was true. The answers will determine not only the outcome of a case that began at a gate at Charleston International Airport but also the contours of a governor’s race already taking shape in South Carolina.
This Article in a Nutshell
Rep. Nancy Mace announced on November 6, 2025 her intent to sue Charleston International Airport, American Airlines, CEO Elliott Summey, AG Alan Wilson, multiple law enforcement officers and a gate agent over allegedly fabricated incident reports from an October 30 confrontation. She seeks damages and public corrections, alleging the accounts damaged her campaign and violated her civil rights. Airport leadership defended its officers and garnered regional support. The case will hinge on proving falsity and “actual malice” in statements about a public official.
