Jamestown Office Closure: 'Credible Threats' Cited, but Local Police Records Show No Threat Reports

Why This Matters for NY-23

On January 10, 2026, Rep. Langworthy announced his Jamestown District Office would close indefinitely, citing “repeated credible threats and calls for violence.” The closure cut off in-person constituent access for Chautauqua County residents. When the office reopened approximately one week later, the Post-Journal reported it coincided with protests in the area subsiding. A FOIL request to the City of Jamestown for all incident reports, police reports, calls for service, and records of threats or security concerns at the office between December 1, 2025 and February 23, 2026 returned one record — a burglar alarm — with no reports of threats, intimidation, protests, or security incidents.

The Public Statements

January 10, 2026 — Closure Announcement:

Langworthy announced the Jamestown office at 2-6 East Second Street (Fenton Building, Room 208) would close indefinitely.

“The safety of my staff and the constituents we serve is my top priority.”

The announcement cited “repeated credible threats and calls for violence” and stated his office was “working closely with U.S. Capitol Police and local law enforcement.”

February 2026 — Reopening Interview (Post-Journal):

After the office reopened, Langworthy provided additional details:

“When someone says they want to do harm or threaten the people that work for me, I take that extremely seriously.”

He described the threats as originating from social media and stated they were reported to Capitol Police. The Post-Journal reported the office reopened after “investigation concluded and protests in the area subsided.”

“We will continue to monitor these online comments, and any threats made to a member of my staff or myself…will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Langworthy’s office stated that phones were answered and constituent communications continued remotely during the closure.

What the Public Records Show

FOIL Request: Filed with the City of Jamestown, requesting all records related to threats, intimidation, protests, or security concerns at 2-6 East Second Street (Langworthy’s office) for December 1, 2025 through February 23, 2026. Also requested all communications between Jamestown Police Department and U.S. Capitol Police or any federal law enforcement agency regarding the office.

FOIL Response: Fulfilled February 24, 2026. Cost: $0.50.

Records returned: One (1)

What was NOT in the records:

• Zero incident reports for threats or intimidation at the office
• Zero calls for service related to security concerns
• Zero records of protests or demonstrations at 2-6 East Second Street
• Zero records of communication between JPD and U.S. Capitol Police
• Zero records of communication between JPD and any federal law enforcement agency

The Gap Between the Claim and the Record

What This Does and Does Not Prove

This FOIL response does not prove that no threats were made. Threats made on social media would be investigated by Capitol Police or the FBI, not necessarily the Jamestown Police Department. Online threats against a federal officeholder’s staff could bypass local law enforcement entirely.

What it does establish:

1. The Jamestown Police Department — the local law enforcement agency responsible for the office’s physical location — has no records of threats, security incidents, or protests at Langworthy’s office during the closure period.

2. Despite Langworthy stating he was “working closely with… local law enforcement,” there are no records of communication between JPD and Capitol Police or any federal agency about the office.

3. The only police response to the office during the entire December–February period was a burglar alarm on February 5, at which point no employee was on site.

4. The Post-Journal’s reporting that the office reopened after “protests in the area subsided” suggests the closure may have been related to constituent protests rather than — or in addition to — the stated “credible threats.”

Prior Incidents at the Office

Langworthy’s office referenced two prior incidents during the reopening interview, though neither occurred during the closure period:

The Jamestown vandalism — described by Langworthy’s office during the reopening interview as “lock tampered with” — is confirmed in the second FOIL response as $30 in door handle damage with no suspect identified and no working surveillance cameras. The officer filed it as an informational report only.

Questions This Raises

1. Langworthy stated he was “working closely with local law enforcement.” The Jamestown Police Department has no records of such coordination. Which local law enforcement agency was involved?

2. If the threats were made on social media and reported to Capitol Police, has Capitol Police confirmed receiving these reports? Have any arrests or prosecutions resulted?

3. The Post-Journal reported the office reopened after “protests in the area subsided.” Was the closure related to constituent protests, social media threats, or both?

4. On February 5, 2026, police responded to a burglar alarm at the office and found no employee on site. Was the office still closed at that point, or had it reopened?

5. Langworthy stated that threats “will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” Have any prosecutions been initiated?

Second FOIL Response: Four Additional Incidents (Feb–March 2025)

A second FOIL response was fulfilled on February 24, 2026 (cost: $4.50). It returned four additional incident records at 2 E 2nd Street, Suite 208 — all from approximately one year before the January 2026 closure.

What These Records Show

Across both FOIL responses — covering the full period from February 2025 through February 2026 — the Jamestown Police Department’s complete record at Langworthy’s office consists of:

• Zero threat reports
• Zero reports of violence or calls for violence
• Zero documented protests at the office
• One criminal mischief report: $30 door handle damage (Feb 2025, unsolved, no suspect identified)
• Three false or accidental alarms (phone line checks, burglar alarm)
• One “nothing suspicious” check after a reported phone line issue

The criminal mischief report (Feb 20-21, 2025) is notable: the staff member referenced “issues with protestors in the past from the Jamestown justice coalition” as context for wanting the $30 door handle damage documented. This is the only reference to protest activity in any JPD record — and it is a complainant’s characterization, not an independently verified police finding. The incident itself involved minor property damage with no suspect, no threats, and no violence.

Impact on the “Credible Threats” Claim

The second FOIL response does not change the core finding: Langworthy cited “repeated credible threats and calls for violence” to close the office in January 2026, but local police records contain no reports of threats or violence at the office at any point in the preceding year. The most serious documented incident was $30 in door handle damage.

Update — April 25, 2026: U.S. Capitol Police Denied RFI; Appeal Filed

A Request for Information (RFI) was filed with the United States Capitol Police on February 23, 2026, seeking “identifiable records related to threat assessments and investigations involving U.S. Representative Nick Langworthy’s Jamestown District Office in January 2026.”

On April 24, 2026, USCP’s Office of the General Counsel denied the RFI in full. The denial letter cites two reasons:

1. The requested information is “not an ‘identifiable record’” under USCP’s Public Request for Information Policy.
2. The requested information “could reasonably disclose techniques, guidelines, and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions.”

Download USCP denial letter (PDF)

The Appeal

An administrative appeal was mailed via U.S. Mail on April 24, 2026, addressed to the Assistant Chief of Police for Standards and Training Operations, 119 D Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20510, within the 7-day appeal window stated in the denial letter. USCP states that all appeal decisions are final.

Download appeal letter (PDF)

The appeal raises four grounds:

1. The request seeks identifiable records. The original RFI named a specific subject (Rep. Langworthy), a specific location (the Jamestown District Office at 2–6 East Second Street, Room 208), a specific date range (December 1, 2025 through February 23, 2026), a specific triggering incident (the January 2026 closure), and three discrete categories of records (threat-assessment files, USCP communications with local law enforcement, and disposition of any resulting investigation). The denial provides no explanation of what further specificity USCP would require.

2. The two denial grounds are internally inconsistent. USCP cannot simultaneously claim that the request fails to identify any record and that the records it would identify are sensitive enough to warrant a content-based withholding. A content-based exemption presupposes the existence of identifiable responsive records.

3. The request does not seek “techniques, guidelines, or procedures.” It seeks factual records about a specific, publicly acknowledged incident — not internal manuals or methodology documents. To the extent any particular record would reveal exempt material, the policy provides for segregation and redaction (Section 4(d)(3)) rather than wholesale denial. The original request expressly invoked that provision; the denial letter did not address it.

4. The public interest in disclosure is substantial. Rep. Langworthy himself publicly attributed the closure to “repeated credible threats and calls for violence,” stated he was “working closely with U.S. Capitol Police and local law enforcement,” and indicated those responsible would be prosecuted. Constituents have a legitimate interest in confirming the factual basis of those statements and the scope of USCP’s response.

What This Adds to the Record

USCP’s denial neither confirms nor denies the existence of any threat assessment or investigation related to the Jamestown office. Their stated grounds for refusing to release records are procedural (the request was not specific enough to identify a record) and content-based (releasing the records could disclose investigative techniques).

The public record now shows:

• Jamestown Police Department: zero threat reports, zero protest records, zero communications with Capitol Police during the closure period (two FOIL responses, full year)
• United States Capitol Police: denied access to any threat-assessment records, citing procedural and investigative-technique exemptions
• No agency has produced records that independently corroborate the “repeated credible threats and calls for violence” cited as the reason for the office closure

The pending appeal will determine whether USCP’s denial stands or is overturned.

Sources

• Post-Journal: “‘Threats’ Close Langworthy’s Office in City” (January 12, 2026)
• Post-Journal: “Langworthy’s Jamestown Office Reopens” (February 2026)
• Observer Today: “U.S. Rep. Langworthy’s Jamestown office open again” (February 2026)
• Olean Times Herald: “Citing threats, Langworthy closes Jamestown office” (January 12, 2026)
• WGRZ: “Langworthy closes Jamestown office; violent threats cited” (January 2026)
• Wellsville Sun: “Congressman Langworthy will indefinitely close Jamestown office” (January 11, 2026)
• City of Jamestown FOIL Response #1: Fulfilled February 24, 2026 — $0.50 (Incident 2026-00002972)
• City of Jamestown FOIL Response #2: Fulfilled February 24, 2026 — $4.50 (Incidents 2025-00004135, 2025-00004419, 2025-00005375, 2025-00007404)
• U.S. Capitol Police: RFI denial letter, April 24, 2026 (PDF)
• Administrative appeal of USCP denial, mailed April 24, 2026 (PDF)

Related Fact-Checks

• Epstein Files: Discharge Petition and Wexner Deposition — Another instance where Langworthy’s stated position diverged from his documented actions

Note: This entry is based on publicly available news reports and records obtained through two lawful FOIL requests to the City of Jamestown, plus a Request for Information to the United States Capitol Police. The Jamestown FOIL responses cover only local police records. Threats reported directly to Capitol Police or federal agencies would not appear in those records. The U.S. Capitol Police denied the RFI on April 24, 2026; an administrative appeal was mailed the same day.

Document obtained by: LangworthyWatch via FOIL request

In Plain Language

On January 10, Langworthy closed his Jamestown office, saying it was due to “repeated credible threats and calls for violence.” He said he was “working closely with local law enforcement.”

A FOIL request to the City of Jamestown asked for every police report, incident report, call for service, and record of threats or security concerns at the office from December through February. The city returned one record: a burglar alarm on February 5. No one from Langworthy’s office was there when police arrived.

There were no police reports of threats. No records of protests. No records of any communication between local police and Capitol Police.

It is possible that threats were made on social media and reported only to Capitol Police, bypassing local law enforcement. Langworthy has said the threats came from social media. But his statement that he was “working closely with local law enforcement” is not reflected in the local police records.

The Post-Journal reported the office reopened after “protests in the area subsided” — raising the question of whether the closure was prompted by constituent protests rather than the stated threats.

A second FOIL response covering earlier dates returned four additional records from February–March 2025: three false or accidental alarms and one criminal mischief report ($30 door handle damage, no suspect). Across the full year of JPD records, there are no reports of threats, violence, or protests at the office.

Update (April 25, 2026): A Request for Information to U.S. Capitol Police, asking for any threat-assessment records related to the Jamestown office in January 2026, was denied on April 24, 2026. USCP cited two reasons: the request was “not an ‘identifiable record’” under their policy, and releasing the records “could reasonably disclose techniques, guidelines, and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations.” An administrative appeal was mailed the same day. The denial does not confirm or deny that any threat assessment exists — it only declines to release records under the cited policy. The local police record (zero threat reports) remains unchanged.

Last updated: April 25, 2026