Someone who's appeared a lot in the first batch of these files is former US president Bill Clinton. Someone who hasn't appeared much yet is the current president, Donald Trump, despite his opponents' expectations.

That's been seized upon by Clinton spokesperson, Angel Ureña, who has released a statement on social media accusing the Trump administration of "shielding themselves from what comes next".

"The White House hasn't been hiding these files for months only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton. This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they'll try and hide forever. So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn't about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be.

"There are two types of people here. The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We're in the first. No amount of stalling by people in the second group will change that. Everyone, especially MAGA, expects answers, not scapegoats."

There is no implication that either US president has been involved in wrongdoing.

Democrats are firing up over the news that some documents are likely to be held back despite today's deadline.

The senior Democrats on Congress's House Oversight Committee, which has been running its own investigation into the Epstein case, accused the government of "making clear it intends to defy Congress".

"We are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law," Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin said in a joint statement.

The Oversight Committee Democrats have been pushing hard for this deadline to be met without exception. They've been regularly releasing photos from their own evidence-gathering as part of a pressure campaign.

The party's leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, says he'll work with lawyers to assess which documents were held back.

"The Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some," he said.

The files we're sorting through have been made available on the US Department of Justice website.

For most of this morning, they've been sorted into four sections, called "data sets" (you may have seen me mention which set other journalists and I have been working through). 

Just now, a fifth data set has been uploaded. 

A cursory glance suggests it's a cache of photos, but my colleague Will Jackson has begun combing through them. 

Phoebe Hosier, one of the talented producers in our North America bureau, has found this framed photo of Jeffrey Epstein. 

In it, the financier can be seen posing with a female whose identity has been redacted. 

They're holding a novelty cheque for $US22,500 signed by Donald J Trump. 

Hi everyone, Rachel Clayton here, reporting from Washington DC, where our team is furiously delving into what's been released. 

One big question on everyone's mind now is: What are the consequences for not releasing the full trove of documents? 

Today's release follows months of congressional pressure and a new law signed by US President Donald Trump, mandating disclosure within 30 days. 

However, we know the release is incomplete, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) citing ongoing redactions to protect victims, and promising hundreds of thousands more documents will be released on a rolling basis over the next few weeks.

Democrats are furious. They have been at pains to ensure the public eye is centred on these files and have continued to remind the DOJ that midnight tonight, local time, is the legal deadline for the release.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act does stipulate the deadline, but it does not detail what the consequences are of not abiding by it. 

The Democrats have already said they are looking into their legal options. 

We know that could include an eventual impeachment of Attorney-General Pam Bondi, but that's unlikely to happen until a new administration is brought in.

The House Oversight Committee may try to compel the DOJ using subpoenas and by holding officials in contempt of Congress if ignored. 

They could face hurdles in a Republican-controlled administration, however, given Congress passed the Epstein Act almost unanimously, there will be an appetite for lawmakers to be held accountable. 

An undated, handwritten letter signed by a "Steve D Small" in Buffalo, New York tells Jeffrey Epstein,"I hate that you got into this mess with these girls over the years."

"These girls new (sic) what they were doing," Small writes. 

"You didn't put a gun to there (sic) head. 

"But you have to watch it to (sic), all rich people are targets in this world. People are going to come at you to get a dollar." 

Small goes on to advise Epstein: "You really need to watch yourself. 

"You knew these girls would come at you in the long run and mess up your reputation."

He writes that he is "pulling for you now and in the future to take care of self".

If you're just tuning in, here's a quick catch-up on what's going on. 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has released the first tranche of files from the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. 

The drop happened today in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by Congress last month, which gave a 30-day deadline for their release. 

However, the DOJ has indicated it will not fully meet the deadline today, as some files are still being reviewed. 

The law allowed the department to redact any identifying details of Epstein's victims, as well as information relating to ongoing investigations.

"Several hundred thousand more" will be released in coming weeks. 

In the meantime, we have a team of journalists poring through the reams of evidence that have been made available today. 

We're sharing our notable finds here, in addition to key reactions and developments. 

If you'd like to access the files for yourself, you can do so here.

A raft of celebrities and high-profile individuals appear in photos throughout the Epstein files. 

Musical artists Michael Jackson, Diana Ross and Mick Jagger appear in some. 

In others are billionaire Richard Branson and Sarah Ferguson, the former Duchess of York. 

These photographs do not imply any wrongdoing. 

Continuing to read through the police report I mentioned below, the unnamed investigator writes of entries in telephone message books addressed to Jeffrey Epstein. 

First names of girls, dates and telephone numbers were on the copy of the messages, they wrote.

I recognized various numbers and names of girls that had already been interviewed. 

The body of the messages was time of the day that they called for confirmation of "work". 

Other names and telephone numbers were located in which the body of the messages were, "I have girls for him" or "I have 2 girls for him". 

That appears to correspond with scanned documents North America bureau producer Emilie Gramenz has found elsewhere in the files. 

A file in data set four includes documents from the Palm Beach Police Department's early investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. 

A report by an investigator discusses receiving a call from the stepmother of a 14-year-old girl in March, 2005. 

It goes on to detail alleged sexual abuse of the child on two occassions. 

Here is an excerpt: 

I received a call from a woman who did not wish to identify herself (later identified as [redacted]). 

She stated that her 14-year-old stepdaughter (later identified as [redacted]) possibly may have been [redacted] in Palm Beach by a wealthy man. 

According to [redacted] she learned of the possible [redacted] by a third party. 

She explained that she had received a call from the mother of her stepdaughter's friend. 

The mother claimed to have overheard a conversation between her daughter and a male friend; they were talking about [redacted]. 

The conversation was about how [redacted] had met with a 45-year-old man and had sex with him and was paid for it. 

I advised [redacted] that I would like to meet with her to obtain a more detailed statement and facts. 

Later in the report, the investigator writes: 

According to Mrs [redacted] she believes the incident occurred on Sunday, Feb 6, 2005. 

A friend of [redacted] named [redacted] picked her up at their house and left. 

They believe [redacted] initiated the reationship with the older gentleman, though they do not have any proof. 

[Redacted] lives close by with her mother. 

Mrs [redacted] further explained that [redacted] was introduced to [redacted] by [redacted], a boy she was dating (goes to [redacted]). 

Mrs [redacted] continued that on Sunday, [redacted] picked up [redacted] and drove to Palm Beach where they met the man. 

Supposedly, the man has a lot of money and often has young girls come over to his house. 

[Redacted] offers these girls a way to make fast cash. 

The man starts with a massage. 

If he likes them, he keeps them around and does more.