Members of Congress reviewing unredacted Jeffrey Epstein documents are raising alarm over what they describe as deeply disturbing language, coded references, and evidence suggesting “very, very sick” abuse that may extend beyond previously known trafficking crimes.
During an appearance on Newsmax, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) said the material lawmakers were permitted to examine under the Epstein Files Transparency Act appears far darker than the public narrative surrounding Epstein’s operation.
Boebert joined a select group of lawmakers granted access to the files.
While members of Congress cannot copy documents or publicly reveal concealed identities, they are able to discuss what they observed in general terms.
She told host Rob Schmitt the documents contain troubling coded language and repeated references to “consumption.”
“This seems that it wasn’t only the trafficking of young girls, as the narrative suggests, but there are code words that suggest Jeffrey Epstein and his associates could maybe even be engaging in some consumption,” Boebert said.
“Is that human consumption?
“Are there code words?”
She cited repeated mentions of “beef jerky” and references tied to a restaurant called The Cannibal appearing within the documents.
“Now, that isn’t a restaurant that is claiming to serve human meat by any means, but some of this just seems like there are a lot of conspiracies that make you wonder,” she added.
Emails Describing Torture and Child Victims
Boebert said the files also contained numerous emails referencing torture and abuse, which she described as a recurring theme in the communications.
“I saw more emails about torture,” Boebert revealed.
“These coded conversations still have a very clear topic — that torture was big.
“It was a big driver for them.
“And these were sick people doing very, very sick things,” she said.
She further alleged that emails referenced extremely young victims and suggested involvement by women connected to Epstein and his convicted sex trafficking accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.
“As you mentioned, there are many women who are involved in this,” Boebert said
“You have folks who were working directly for Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
“And a lot of these women are the ones sending emails saying, ‘Here’s one, 10 years old, 11 years old, 9 years old.'”
WATCH:
Additional Questions Raised by Lawmakers
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) echoed concerns during an appearance on “The Benny Show.”
Luna said her own review of widely circulated Epstein emails left her with serious unanswered questions.
“I looked directly at the emails that have been widely circulated about the ‘Age 11,’ and what I called the ‘Permission to Kill’ email,” Luna said.
“These were emails sent by women to Epstein — many of whom were victims who were allegedly groomed to later be traffickers themselves.”
Luna also referenced unusual terminology appearing in the communications.
“It’s a code word, and it’s weird,” she said, referring to the phrase “‘Jerky’ — whatever that is.”
WATCH:
🚨BREAKING: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna CONFIRMS the use of ‘Code Words’ in Epstein Emails like ‘Jerky’, Has Seen The UNREDACTED Files Describing Specific Ages ’11 Year Olds’ And ‘Permission To Kill’, Reveals They Were Sent By Women Who Were Alleged Victims:
“I looked… pic.twitter.com/vosF2oKEee
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 10, 2026
Pressure Mounts for Full Transparency
The revelations come as lawmakers continue pushing for broader public disclosure of Epstein-related records, including identities and communications that remain shielded from public view.
The lawmakers who have seen the unredacted Epstein Files are now under pressure to begin naming names of coconspirators.
Because members of Congress are shielded by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6, lawmakers speaking during official legislative proceedings enjoy sweeping legal protection for what they say on the House floor.
That immunity generally prevents lawsuits or criminal liability tied to statements made as part of congressional oversight or investigation.
In practical terms, a representative who chose to publicly identify individuals referenced in the Epstein files during a formal floor speech would be operating within one of the strongest protected speech zones in American law.
That protection, however, is narrowly tied to official legislative activity.
If the same claims were repeated outside Congress, such as in media interviews, press conferences, or social media, the constitutional shield would not necessarily apply, potentially opening the door to legal consequences.
Lawmakers also remain bound by internal House ethics and decorum rules, meaning Congress itself could still impose discipline even where outside courts cannot intervene.
However, the clause allows for lawmakers to reveal the identities of powerful elites tied to Epstein, provided they do so from the House floor.
The descriptions of the Epstein Files provided by lawmakers are intensifying demands for complete transparency into Epstein’s network, the scope of alleged abuse, and any powerful figures who may have been connected.
With scrutiny escalating on Capitol Hill, the newly unsealed materials are renewing one of the most consequential unanswered questions surrounding the Epstein case:
How far the network reached, who knew, and who was involved.
READ MORE – Epstein & Bill Gates Discussed Getting ‘Rid of Poor People as a Whole’
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.