Coincidence Or Code? Why ‘Pizza’ Keeps Appearing In the Epstein Files

The Jeffrey Epstein case feels less like a closed criminal investigation and more like a Sherlock Holmes mystery. The man at the centre is dead. His closest associate is in prison. And yet the questions keep multiplying. 

Millions of pages have been released, but entire paragraphs vanish under black bars. And then there’s one odd pattern that almost feels absurd. One word that keeps showing up again and again. Pizza.

The question is whether this is just a harmless food reference or something darker? 

Where the “Pizza Code” Theory Began

The idea that ordinary food words could be secret trafficking codes dates back to the 2016 United States presidential election, when WikiLeaks released thousands of emails belonging to John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. 

Online users began combing through the messages line by line. Harmless references to pizza were screenshotted and reinterpreted as hidden signals. “Cheese pizza,” shortened to “C.P.,” was claimed to mean Child Pornography. 

The theory spread rapidly across 4chan, Reddit, and YouTube, eventually morphing into what became known as “Pizzagate”. The alleged claim that Democratic leaders were running a child trafficking ring out of a Washington DC pizza restaurant.

The claims were never supported by law enforcement or court findings. Still, the vocabulary stuck online. According to widely shared images and posts, the supposed meanings were: 

• “hotdog” equals boy

• “pizza” equals girl

• “cheese” equals little girl

•  “pasta” equals little boy

•  “ice cream” equals male prostitute,

•  “walnut” equals person of colour, 

• “map” equals semen,

•  “sauce” equals orgy

However, no FBI bulletin or court record has established these words as proven trafficking codes.

Why the Theory Has Returned With the Epstein Files

The release of millions of pages of Epstein-related documents has reopened the debate. The word “pizza” alone shows up reportedly close to 900 times across emails and messages. 

Some lines read ordinary, such as “What time do you want to get pizza and grape soda tomorrow?” Others sound informal or oddly phrased, like “Your Pizza Is YUMMY YUMMY!!” or “let’s go for pizza and grape soda again."

The repetition looks suspicious. However, repetition by itself is not evidence of criminal code. 

The Black Bars: Why So Much Is Censored

This brings us to another obvious question. Open any of the released Epstein files, and the first thing you notice is black bars everywhere. Names missing, addresses wiped out, and email chains cut halfway.

Sometimes entire pages are almost unreadable. At first glance, it feels like something important is being purposely hidden. But legally, it’s not that simple.

US transparency laws work in two directions. The Freedom of Information Act gives the public access to government records, but the Privacy Act of 1974 protects victims, witnesses and uninvolved individuals.

Also, grand jury materials stay sealed, and some details are withheld for national security. So the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the courts all redact material for different legal reasons.

The real problem is that the government rarely explains which redaction is for what. And that silence creates doubt. When a name is blacked out, the public is left guessing. Is it a victim or a witness? Or someone powerful being protected? 

The Bigger Question

Strip away the conspiracy theories, and one uncomfortable truth remains. Even without code words, the facts are disturbing enough. A convicted sex offender built relationships with some of the most influential people in the world. He flew young women across an Island and operated for years in plain sight.

Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t a lone monster. He had powerful friends and associates who were complicit in the abuse and are still protected by wealth and influence. Some are presidents. Some run billion-dollar empires. Some belong to royal families. Many have never faced real consequences.

The failure isn’t complicated. It’s power protecting power.

Views expressed by the author are their own.