Jared Moskowitz's official House biography identifies him as the representative for Florida's 23rd Congressional District and says that, in the 119th Congress, he serves on the House Judiciary Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence.1 His official committees-and-caucuses page says he previously served on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability during the 118th Congress and lists him as co-chair and co-founder of the UAP Caucus.2
Across the sources used here, Moskowitz's public UAP role is congressional rather than firsthand: it consists of hearing questions, a signed letter to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, UAP Transparency Act cosponsorship, and statements that transparency should be balanced against national-security limits.345678
2023 House Oversight Hearing
At the July 26, 2023 House Oversight hearing "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency," Moskowitz questioned Ryan Graves, retired Commander David Fravor, and David Grusch about flight performance, G forces, exterior features, alleged nonhuman-origin craft, alleged unsanctioned advanced-technology programs, alleged funding diversion, satellite imagery, crash-site imagery, and possible government disinformation.3
The exchange moved from observable-performance questions to Grusch's claims about hidden programs and funding, but several of the most consequential topics remained outside the open record because Grusch said details would require a closed or classified setting.3 As a public dossier matter, the hearing records Moskowitz asking oversight questions and Grusch making claims under oath, but it does not publicly verify a crash-retrieval program, reverse-engineering program, nonhuman craft, or disinformation campaign.3
ICIG Letter and Caucus Role
On August 21, 2023, Moskowitz joined Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, Nancy Mace, Eric Burlison, and Andy Ogles in a letter to Intelligence Community Inspector General Thomas Monheim after Grusch testified that some answers could not be given publicly and had been provided to the ICIG.4
The letter asked which intelligence-community members, positions, facilities, military bases, or other actors were involved directly or indirectly in alleged UAP crash-retrieval programs and alleged UAP reverse-engineering programs.4 The letter requested answers by September 15, 2023, or access in a secure setting by September 26, 2023 if the requested information was classified.4
That letter is a concrete oversight action by Moskowitz, but it is not proof of the alleged programs it sought to identify.4 Its evidentiary value is narrower: the signatories attempted to move Grusch's classified-venue claims into an accountable congressional channel.34
UAP Transparency Act
Congress.gov records H.R.8424, the UAP Transparency Act in the 118th Congress, as introduced by Burchett on May 16, 2024, referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and cosponsored by Moskowitz, Luna, and Burlison on the date of introduction.5 The bill's official title would require public release of all documents, reports, and other records relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena.5
The same Congress.gov record lists H.R.8424 as an introduced bill with no later action beyond referral, so the bill is evidence of Moskowitz's disclosure agenda rather than enacted disclosure law.5
2024 Exposing the Truth Hearing
At the November 13, 2024 House hearing "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth," the transcript records Moskowitz questioning Michael Gold, Luis Elizondo, and Tim Gallaudet about stigma, data collection, a document Elizondo said restricted discussion of crash retrieval, SCIF handling, special-access or controlled-access documents, and Gallaudet's account of the USS Omaha incident.6
Moskowitz's prepared opening statement for the same hearing identified him as vice ranking member, called Burchett his fellow co-chair of the Congressional UAP Caucus, cited H.R.8424 as a declassification measure, and argued for transparency within reasonable national-security limits.7
The 2024 hearing record again preserves a split between allegation and public proof: Moskowitz pressed witnesses on why topics were restricted or stigmatized, while Elizondo said some details could not be discussed in the open forum and Gallaudet described an incident from his own writing rather than presenting released sensor evidence in the transcript.6
2025 Whistleblower Hearing
The Government Publishing Office print for "Restoring Public Trust Through UAP Transparency and Whistleblower Protection" identifies the proceeding as a September 9, 2025 hearing before the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.8 The print lists Moskowitz among members waived onto the task force for questioning and records him questioning Chief Alexandro Wiggins, Dylan Borland, and Jeffrey Nuccetelli about their reported observations, their reporting paths, and how they interpreted what they saw.8
Moskowitz's 2025 questioning treated Wiggins's account as a prompt for eliminating possibilities, including unknown weapons programs or non-governmental origins, while Wiggins agreed with the framed binary and Nuccetelli later said his group still did not know what they saw.8 That exchange is important because it shows Moskowitz testing attribution possibilities, but the record remains witness testimony rather than an independent technical finding.8
Congress.gov records H.R.5060, the UAP Whistleblower Protection Act, as a 2025 Burchett bill with Luna and Crane listed as cosponsors and without Moskowitz listed as a sponsor or cosponsor.9 For that reason, H.R.5060 is relevant context for the September 2025 whistleblower-protection hearing, but this dossier does not attribute the bill to Moskowitz as a legislative action.89
Evidentiary Limits
AARO's 2024 historical report says it reviewed official U.S. government UAP investigatory efforts since 1945, researched classified and unclassified archives, conducted approximately 30 interviews, and worked with officials responsible for controlled and special-access program oversight.10 AARO reported that it found no evidence that any U.S. government investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel had confirmed a UAP sighting as extraterrestrial technology, and it also reported no empirical evidence that the U.S. government or private companies had been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology.10
That official finding conflicts with the direction of several claims Moskowitz examined in public hearings, so the strongest public conclusion is limited: Moskowitz has used Congress to press for UAP transparency, whistleblower protection, declassification, and oversight access, but the public record does not independently establish nonhuman craft, recovered biologics, a confirmed crash-retrieval program, or a verified reverse-engineering program.34567810