The Washington Post’s September 5 examination found no evidence that the clip it reviewed was AI-generated or edited, while the recording’s origin remained unresolved. (The Washington Post)
For months, a controversial recording attributed to Michigan State Senator and congressional candidate Jeremy Moss has hung over the race for Michigan's 11th Congressional District.
Now Troy Mayor and Republican congressional candidate Ethan Baker is confronting the controversy directly.
And at this point, simply dismissing the recording does not resolve the questions surrounding it.
If Moss maintains that the recording is false, voters are entitled to examine his denial alongside the recording itself, the available forensic analysis and whatever additional evidence becomes public.
The issue is bigger than a political feud between two candidates.
It concerns the priorities of someone seeking a seat in the United States Congress.
Baker Says Voters Deserve the Truth
In his October 2 statement, Baker explains that he did not immediately seize upon the recording as a political weapon.
He says he condemned hatred and personal attacks against Moss, attempted to lower the temperature surrounding the controversy and gave Moss an opportunity to respond.
But Baker also makes another point that should not be overlooked:
"And, there is another side of this that I believe we also have to respect: the people of this district and their concerns about the truth."
Exactly.
Respect for a candidate cannot require voters to stop asking questions.
Moss is seeking federal office. When potentially consequential statements are publicly attributed to someone seeking that responsibility, voters have every right to examine them closely.
What Is Heard on the Recording?
The approximately 25-second recording has been attributed online to Moss. Moss disputes that attribution and has strongly denied making the statements.
One of the statements heard on the recording says:
"The entire purpose of my campaign is to make sure America continues to support Israel."
Another says:
"America is not our homeland."
If those statements are authentic and attributable to Moss, they would raise serious questions about the priorities of a candidate asking Michigan voters to send him to Washington.
Moss says they are not his words.
That is his position.
But a denial does not end public scrutiny of a disputed recording. Voters can examine the denial together with the other available evidence.
The Forensic Findings Cannot Simply Be Ignored
The controversy becomes more significant because forensic specialists examining the publicly available audio reportedly found no evidence that the recording they examined was AI-generated or edited.
That does not answer every question surrounding the recording. Its original source remains an important unresolved issue.
But the forensic findings matter because one of the central questions surrounding the controversy has been whether the audible material itself was artificially created or technically manipulated.
The examination did not find evidence of that in the audio reviewed.
So the questions remain.
Where did the recording originate?
What was the complete conversation?
Is there a longer recording?
What evidence supports Moss's contention that the material is false?
Those are legitimate questions for a congressional candidate.
Baker Even Acknowledges a Problem With One Version
Baker does something important in his statement that strengthens the case for examining the evidence carefully rather than accepting everything circulated on social media.
He acknowledges that a caption accompanying one version of the recording attributed words that were not actually audible.
Baker says that caption should not be treated as part of the recording.
That's the appropriate standard.
Remove what cannot be supported.
Then examine what remains.
An inaccurate caption does not automatically establish that the underlying audio is fabricated. They are separate questions.
That distinction deserves considerably more attention.
"The Entire Purpose of My Campaign"
This is where Moss should face the most direct questioning.
The statement heard on the recording is not merely:
"I support Israel."
Many Republicans and Democrats strongly support Israel. That is a conventional foreign-policy position that voters can support or oppose.
The recording goes much further.
The speaker describes ensuring continued American support for Israel as the "entire purpose" of the campaign.
Those words, if authentically attributable to Moss, would demand an explanation.
Michigan's 11th District is not located in Israel.
Its representative is elected by Americans living in Michigan.
Those constituents are concerned about housing, taxes, inflation, insurance costs, health care, Social Security, Medicare, jobs, manufacturing, infrastructure, immigration, education and public safety.
A candidate seeking to represent those people should therefore be prepared to answer a straightforward question:
If the recording is authentic, why would ensuring American support for Israel be described as the "entire purpose" of a campaign for the United States Congress?
That is not an antisemitic question.
It is a question about congressional priorities.
And What About "America Is Not Our Homeland"?
The second statement deserves scrutiny as well:
"America is not our homeland."
Again, Moss denies making the statements attributed to him.
But if that statement is ultimately established as authentic and attributable to him, voters would reasonably want to know precisely what was meant.
What was the context?
What came immediately before it?
What came afterward?
Was the speaker describing someone else's position? Was the statement rhetorical? Was it part of a larger discussion whose context changes its meaning?
Those questions cannot be answered by a 25-second excerpt alone.
That is precisely why more transparency—not less—is useful.
This Is About Moss's Alleged Words, Not His Jewish Identity
There must also be a firm boundary around this controversy.
Jeremy Moss is Jewish.
That fact is not evidence of divided loyalty.
Jewish Americans should no more be required to prove their loyalty to the United States because of their religion than Muslim, Christian, Hindu or any other Americans should.
The scrutiny here should therefore remain where it belongs: on the recording, the statements contained in it, Moss's denial, the forensic evidence, his documented policy positions and any additional evidence concerning the recording's origin.
If a Catholic candidate were recorded saying the entire purpose of his campaign was protecting the interests of the Vatican, voters could ask questions.
If a Muslim candidate allegedly said it, voters could ask questions.
If a Jewish candidate allegedly said it, voters can ask questions.
The standard should be identical.
Baker Is Putting the Evidence Before the Voters
Baker's approach is ultimately straightforward.
He is directing people to the original short recording and asking them to listen.
He writes:
"Now, the decision rests with the people of the 11th District."
And that is exactly where the decision belongs.
Neither Ethan Baker nor Jeremy Moss should determine what voters are permitted to question.
Voters can listen.
They can examine the forensic findings.
They can read Moss's denial.
They can examine Baker's statement.
They can consider each candidate's documented record on Israel and American foreign policy.
And they can decide how much weight the controversy deserves.
Moss Should Answer the Questions Directly
The controversy can be reduced to several questions that deserve clear answers:
What evidence establishes where the recording originated?
Why did forensic specialists reportedly find no evidence that the audio they examined was AI-generated or edited?
Does a longer version of the recording exist?
What evidence does Moss have supporting his assertion that the recording is false?
If additional context exists, will it be released?
And most importantly, if the disputed statements were ever established as authentic:
Why would a candidate for the United States Congress describe ensuring American support for Israel as the "entire purpose" of his campaign?
Those are not questions about Jeremy Moss's religion.
They are questions about a candidate for Congress.
America Comes First in the Oath of Office
Whoever wins Michigan's 11th Congressional District will not take an oath to Israel.
He will not take an oath to a political party, lobbying organization or foreign government.
A member of Congress takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That doesn't prohibit supporting Israel. The United States has alliances and partnerships around the world, and members of Congress routinely disagree about how those relationships should work.
But American voters are entitled to know how a candidate prioritizes American interests when American and foreign-government interests diverge.
That is the legitimate issue buried underneath months of accusations and counteraccusations surrounding this recording.
Jeremy Moss has denied making the statements.
Ethan Baker is challenging voters to examine the evidence rather than simply accepting that denial.
Now the public deserves as much verifiable information as possible.
Because the ultimate question isn't whether Jeremy Moss supports Israel.
The question is what Jeremy Moss's priorities would be as a member of the United States Congress and whether the disputed recording tells voters anything reliable about those priorities.
Michigan's 11th District voters can examine the evidence and decide that for themselves.
