He Did It Again: "$1M Secured" for Olean Police That Congress Has Not Funded

Public Safety / Transparency Source: Facebook Post DOCUMENTED PATTERN

Original source → · Archived copy →

Why this matters

Three weeks ago we documented Langworthy announcing money for two hospital radiology labs as “delivered” and “secured” when it was only a request in a draft bill. He has now done the same thing with the Olean Police Department — and the reason it matters is not hypothetical: the last time he “secured” a batch of these earmarks, Congress wiped out every one of them.

Statement

Source: Facebook, Rep. Nick Langworthy, July 2026 (permalink capture pending)

“Proud to be in Olean today to announce I secured $1 million through Community Project Funding for the Police Department to upgrade their 67 year old facility. … This funding passed the House last month and now the Senate must act so we can get this worthy project moving.”

The Facts

It is a request, not secured funding. The City of Olean Police Department Modernization Project is on Langworthy’s official FY2027 Community Project Funding disclosure — a request he filed, not money that exists. His own federal-nexus letter (March 19, 2026) shows the money would flow through the USDA Rural Development Community Facilities program (7 U.S.C. §1926(a)) — that is, the FY2027 Agriculture-Rural Development appropriations bill, one of the twelve FY2027 bills the House has been moving through committee, one at a time. No FY2027 appropriations bill has become law. By his own words, “the Senate must act.” The Olean Times Herald described it, accurately, as “House movement.” (The nexus letter also confirms this is a single federal request to modernize a 1959 facility that has “reached critical failure” — there is no separate, already-secured funding stream for it.)

This is the third documented instance of the same past-tense framing — after the FY2026 appropriations credit-claim and the June 2026 hospital-radiology posts (UPMC Chautauqua $300K, Arnot $500K), where he said “delivered” and “secured” for identical not-yet-enacted FY2027 requests.

And here is why “secured” is the wrong word. For FY2025, Congress never passed full-year appropriations; it enacted a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 119-4) that funded zero Community Project Funding. Every FY2025 earmark sitting in the House and Senate bills — Langworthy’s own included — received nothing, and he had to re-file the same projects for FY2026 to get them enacted. Being in a bill did not “secure” a dollar. Olean is at that same, vulnerable stage now.

In plain language: He told a police department he “secured” their money. He filed a request for it. His last batch of identical requests was erased before it became law.

Context

The request is genuine, the project (a 67-year-old police facility) is real, filing earmarks is a legitimate part of the job, and Langworthy did disclose in the same post that “the Senate must act.” The issue is not that he is doing anything improper — it is the recurring gap between the headline (“I secured”) and the reality (a request that has not passed, in a process that erased his last batch). “Requested $1 million for next year’s budget” is accurate. “Secured” is not, not yet.

Questions This Raises

  1. Is money that has not passed the House floor, the Senate, or become law — and that his own post says still needs Senate action — accurately called “secured”?
  2. Given that his FY2025 earmarks were zeroed out at this same stage, what assurance does Olean have that this survives?
  3. Will he tell Olean if the funding is reduced or dropped, as the FY2025 items were?

Sources

Related: The June 2026 hospital-radiology credit-claim · FY2026 appropriations credit-claim

Note: This entry documents publicly available information about a member’s appropriations request and how it was described. Requesting earmarks is a legal, disclosed part of the process; this addresses the accuracy of “secured.” Last updated: July 9, 2026.