Alaska vs Minnesota on USAspending: $3.49B vs $2.74B

Eight times the people, a smaller stock

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents are about eight times Alaska’s 740,133. Alaska still holds the larger obligation stock: $3.49B versus $2.74B. That inversion is the setup for $532.17 per capita versus $66.07.

Award volume follows headcount. Minnesota records 98,897 awards; Alaska records 25,423. Minnesota’s file is dense in rows on a smaller stock. Alaska’s 25,423 actions sit on $3.49B beside the $532.17 reading.

FY2026 is nearly tied. $393.9M versus $382.8M keeps a slim Alaska dollar lead on the latest year. Cite USAspending.gov for both the stacked stocks and the FY2026 amounts.

Alaska’s $3.49B versus Minnesota’s $2.74B is the stacked ranking. Minnesota’s 98,897 awards versus 25,423 is the row ranking. FY2026 of $393.9M versus $382.8M is almost even. All three dollar-adjacent cuts sit on USAspending.gov obligations except the award counts, which are rows.

Spending per capita of $532.17 versus $66.07 uses Census counts of 740,133 and 5,793,151. Commercial and institutional building construction versus pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds is mix. Outlays are not listed.

Construction versus pharmacy benefit administration

Alaska’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. Minnesota’s lead NAICS is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. Those peaks sit on $3.49B and $2.74B.

The 25,423 Alaska awards and 98,897 Minnesota awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Alaska and Minnesota state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026 stays tight: $393.9M versus $382.8M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $393.9M in Alaska and $382.8M in Minnesota. Recency preserves Alaska’s stacked dollar lead without opening a large gap. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $393.9M or $382.8M by 25,423 or 98,897 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $532.17 and $66.07 already sits beside Census counts of 740,133 and 5,793,151.

Intensity on a small Census count

Alaska’s 740,133 residents produce $3.49B and $532.17 per capita. Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents produce $2.74B and $66.07 per capita. Award volume of 98,897 versus 25,423 is Minnesota’s win on rows. FY2026 of $393.9M versus $382.8M stays almost tied.

Keep those per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations. They are not outlays per resident.

Eight residents in Minnesota for every Alaskan

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents against Alaska’s 740,133 is an eightfold Census gap. Alaska still holds $3.49B versus $2.74B. That is why $532.17 per capita exceeds $66.07. Both dollar stocks are USAspending.gov obligations.

Minnesota’s 98,897 awards dwarf Alaska’s 25,423. More rows, smaller stock. Pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds lead Minnesota. Commercial and institutional building construction leads Alaska.

FY2026 of $393.9M versus $382.8M is almost tied. Recency does not open a large gap. Outlays are not in the packet.

Readers who stop at FY2026 will see $393.9M versus $382.8M and miss $532.17 versus $66.07. Readers who stop at population will see 740,133 versus 5,793,151 and miss $3.49B versus $2.74B. Read the packet’s cuts together.

Cite USAspending.gov for the dollar figures. Keep per-capita labeled as Census-based obligation ratios. The comparison hub holds the tables.

How to read Alaska versus Minnesota

Read Alaska first on stacked dollars ($3.49B vs $2.74B), spending per capita ($532.17 vs $66.07), and a slim FY2026 lead ($393.9M vs $382.8M). Read Minnesota first on population (5,793,151 vs 740,133) and awards (98,897 vs 25,423). Note construction versus pharmacy benefit management.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Alaska and Minnesota hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series.

Questions

Does Alaska or Minnesota have more federal spending?

Alaska leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.49B to Minnesota’s $2.74B. Alaska also leads spending per capita, $532.17 versus $66.07, on 740,133 residents against Minnesota’s 5,793,151. Minnesota has more awards (98,897 vs 25,423). FY2026 obligations are $393.9M in Alaska and $382.8M in Minnesota.

Why is Alaska’s per-capita figure higher than Minnesota’s?

The packet reports $532.17 per capita in Alaska on 740,133 residents and $66.07 in Minnesota on 5,793,151. Stacked stocks are $3.49B versus $2.74B. Award counts are 25,423 versus 98,897. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Alaska and Minnesota?

Alaska’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Minnesota’s is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $3.49B and $2.74B. Award counts are 25,423 in Alaska and 98,897 in Minnesota.

Are Alaska vs Minnesota figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $3.49B and $2.74B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $393.9M and $382.8M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($532.17 vs $66.07) uses Census population where present.