Alabama vs Washington

A narrow dollar lead on a smaller Census count

Alabama’s $7.7B versus Washington’s $7.3B is a tight gap in USAspending.gov obligations, about 1.05×. Population runs the other way: Washington has 7,958,180 residents, Alabama 5,157,699. Fewer people and slightly more dollars produce Alabama’s $116.81 per capita against Washington’s $73.46. Intensity, not headcount, explains Alabama’s edge. FY2026 amounts of $602.5M and $584.6M keep that same narrow Alabama dollar lead on the latest-year cut.

Award counts favor Washington, 236,821 versus 161,254. Washington’s file is busier in rows on a slightly smaller dollar stock. Alabama’s 161,254 actions on $7.7B imply a heavier typical booking. This pair splits three ways: dollars and intensity to Alabama, rows and people to Washington.

Alabama’s 161,254 awards versus Washington’s 236,821 awards is the ranking Washington actually wins, along with population (7,958,180 vs 5,157,699). Dollars ($7.7B vs $7.3B) and per capita ($116.81 vs $73.46) go the other way. A shared construction lead does not pick a winner among those four rankings.

Two construction leads on two different coasts

Alabama’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Washington’s top industry is the same label. A shared NAICS peak does not make the files identical. It means federal building work is the largest slice on $7.7B in Alabama and on $7.3B in Washington.

Construction can be lumpy in both places. The 161,254 Alabama awards and 236,821 Washington awards include many actions that are not buildings. Use the Alabama and Washington state hubs for agencies and recipients rather than treating the construction tag as the entire mix.

FY2026’s $602.5M versus $584.6M is another narrow Alabama dollar lead. Treat it as recency, not as a trend line. Treat $116.81 and $73.46 as stacked obligations divided by Census counts. Treat $7.7B and $7.3B as USAspending.gov commitments, not Monthly Treasury Statement payments.

Questions

Does Alabama or Washington have more federal spending?

Alabama leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $7.7B to Washington’s $7.3B. Alabama also leads spending per capita, $116.81 versus $73.46, on 5,157,699 residents against Washington’s 7,958,180. Washington has more awards (236,821 vs 161,254). FY2026 obligations are $602.5M in Alabama and $584.6M in Washington.

Why does Alabama show more obligations per person than Washington?

Alabama’s $7.7B on 5,157,699 residents produces $116.81 per capita. Washington’s $7.3B on 7,958,180 residents produces $73.46. Washington has more people and more awards (236,821 vs 161,254) but a slightly smaller dollar stock, so intensity favors Alabama. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Do Alabama and Washington have different top industries?

No. Both list commercial and institutional building construction as the top industry. The comparison is scale and intensity on $7.7B versus $7.3B, not a different lead NAICS. Award counts are 161,254 in Alabama and 236,821 in Washington. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Are Alabama vs Washington figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $7.7B and $7.3B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $602.5M and $584.6M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($116.81 vs $73.46) uses Census population against those obligations. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.