Minnesota vs Texas

A $66.07 reading on 5.8 million people

Minnesota is not a small state. 5,793,151 residents against Texas’s 31,290,831 is about 19 percent of the Texas Census count. Minnesota’s $2.7B is about 4 percent of Texas’s $72.7B. That mismatch is the $66.07 versus $686.1 intensity gap. Population does not buy Minnesota a proportional share of the obligation stock.

Minnesota still files 98,897 awards, a substantial tape on $2.7B. Texas files 530,634. Minnesota’s row share is larger than its dollar share. The Upper Midwest file is action-heavy relative to dollars and still far behind Texas on both measures.

Benefit administration versus drug manufacturing

Minnesota’s top NAICS is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. Texas’s top NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. One peak is an administrative health-benefits slice. The other is a manufacturing slice. They sit in the same broad health economy and in different federal buying patterns.

The packet does not give dollar shares for those peaks. It only names them on $2.7B and $72.7B. The 98,897 Minnesota awards and 530,634 Texas awards include many other industries. Use the Minnesota and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov.

Questions

Does Minnesota or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Minnesota’s $2.7B. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $66.07, on 31,290,831 residents against Minnesota’s 5,793,151. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 98,897 in Minnesota. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $382.8M in Minnesota.

Are Minnesota and Texas in the same federal health mix?

Minnesota’s lead industry is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. Texas’s is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those are different NAICS peaks on $2.7B and $72.7B. Award counts are 98,897 versus 530,634. The figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Why is Minnesota’s per-capita figure so low?

The packet reports $66.07 per capita in Minnesota on 5,793,151 residents and $686.1 in Texas on 31,290,831. Stacked stocks are $2.7B versus $72.7B, a larger multiple than the population gap. Award counts are 98,897 versus 530,634. The packet lists USAspending.gov obligations only.

Are Minnesota vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.7B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $382.8M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($66.07 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.