Joe Rogan Says No One in Epstein Emails Has Been Forced to Explain 'Codes'

Joe Rogan said on his podcast that the people whose emails surfaced in the Jeffrey Epstein files have never been made to account for their references to "pizza" and "beef jerky." He also pushed back on a growing argument in online media that the story should be dropped.

Rogan made the remarks on The Joe Rogan Experience with the comedians Kurt Metzger and Duncan Trussell, co-hosts of the Mystery Boys podcast. The episode comes ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections, while the Justice Department is still fighting demands to release more of the Epstein records.

Joe Rogan on the Epstein Email 'Code'

Rogan brought up the emails early in the episode, during an aside about slang used by online predators.

"Whoever ... wrote those emails that's alive they should be brought into a room publicly like what are you talking about," Rogan said.

He came back to it more than an hour later, after his guests joked about whether anyone freezes beef jerky.

"It's not pizza and it's not beef jerky so it's something so there's some kind of a code," Rogan said. "You only use codes if you're doing something that's either illegal immoral inappropriate whatever it is."

He added: "No one who's in those emails has been forced to explain."

The idea that these words are a code is Rogan's own inference, and the record does not support it. Fact-checkers at Snopes reported that Francis Derby, who cooked for Epstein in 2012, said in a statement that he made Epstein's beef jerky from dry-aged New York strip steak. Readings of "pizza" as a code go back to Pizzagate, the debunked 2016 theory that a Washington pizzeria hid a child-trafficking ring.

Rogan Plays 'Devil's Advocate' on Moving On

Trussell raised the "new thing" among online commentators: "stop talking about Epstein." He said Nick Fuentes has been saying it. Metzger added that it was not just Fuentes, naming Newsmax chief executive Chris Ruddy and Gavin McInnes.

Rogan made clear he was arguing the other side for the sake of the conversation.

"Devil's advocate please why are they doing that if you think it's possibly that they think hey look nothing's gonna change this Epstein stuff is a giant distraction there's real shit we should be paying attention to right now like the midterms like Iran," he said.

Metzger replied by asking whether Rogan meant the "cannibal pedophile thing is less of a real thing" than the midterms.

About 83 minutes later, Metzger complained that some commentators were playing down the case by saying it was "just teens." Trussell described an argument that turns on the literal definition of pedophilia. Rogan then restated that argument to check that he understood it.

midterms you should regard as an enemy."

Where the Epstein Files Stand

On January 30, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a release of roughly 3 million documents and photos and 2,000 videos.

The fight did not end there. In court, the Justice Department has argued it already met the law's requirements and has asked a judge to reject demands for additional unredacted records. On October 16, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and 17 other state attorneys general urged Congress to pass a follow-up bill that would let states and survivors sue to force disclosure. The coalition said millions of documents are still withheld on privilege grounds and that personal information about at least 43 victims was exposed in the releases.

Polling on Trump's Handling of the Epstein Investigation

A Quinnipiac University poll of 1,290 registered voters, taken July 10 to 14, 2025, found 63 percent disapproved of the administration's handling of its investigation into Epstein.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted February 13 to 16 found 57 percent disapproved of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation and 24 percent approved.

What Comes Next

The follow-up transparency bill, H.R. 9694 in the House and S. 5005 in the Senate, has not passed, and the court fight over redactions continues. Rogan did not name anyone he wants questioned. His position is simple, though: the emails are public, and the people who wrote them have not explained them.