Alaska vs New Hampshire on USAspending: $3.49B vs $2.48B

Two small states, two high-intensity files

Alaska’s $3.49B on 740,133 residents produces $532.17 per capita. New Hampshire’s $2.48B on 1,409,032 residents produces $284.15. Both ratios are high relative to larger Census states in this batch. Alaska still holds the larger stacked stock.

Award volume favors Alaska, 25,423 versus 9,224. New Hampshire’s file is sparse in rows on $2.48B. Alaska’s 25,423 actions sit on $3.49B.

FY2026 is the close cut. $400.4M in New Hampshire versus $393.9M in Alaska is a recency lead for New Hampshire on a smaller all-years stock. Cite USAspending.gov for both cuts.

Alaska’s $3.49B and New Hampshire’s $2.48B are both large stocks for small Census counts of 740,133 and 1,409,032. Spending per capita of $532.17 and $284.15 follows. FY2026 of $393.9M versus $400.4M is the close recency cut. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Commercial and institutional building construction versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Award counts of 25,423 and 9,224 stay row totals. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are not in the packet.

Construction versus small arms and ordnance

Alaska’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $3.49B and $2.48B.

The 25,423 Alaska awards and 9,224 New Hampshire awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Alaska and New Hampshire state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: New Hampshire $400.4M, Alaska $393.9M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $393.9M in Alaska. Recency does not preserve Alaska’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash, and not as a rewrite of the $3.49B versus $2.48B ranking.

Do not divide $400.4M or $393.9M by 9,224 or 25,423 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $284.15 and $532.17 already sits beside Census counts of 1,409,032 and 740,133.

Twice the people in New Hampshire, a smaller stock

New Hampshire’s 1,409,032 residents exceed Alaska’s 740,133. New Hampshire still trails on $2.48B versus $3.49B and on $284.15 versus $532.17 per capita. Award volume of 25,423 versus 9,224 is Alaska’s win on rows. FY2026 of $400.4M versus $393.9M is New Hampshire’s win on recency.

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

Two high-intensity small states on one obligation series

Alaska’s $532.17 per capita and New Hampshire’s $284.15 are both high relative to larger Census states in this batch. Stocks are $3.49B versus $2.48B. Census counts are 740,133 versus 1,409,032. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Alaska files 25,423 awards; New Hampshire files 9,224. Commercial and institutional building construction leads Alaska. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire.

FY2026 flips a slim lead to New Hampshire: $400.4M versus $393.9M. Recency is not a rewrite of the $3.49B versus $2.48B stacked ranking. Outlays are not listed.

The industry peaks sit on the same USAspending.gov obligation series. They do not create a second dollar total. Cite $3.49B and $2.48B as stacked stocks and $393.9M and $400.4M as FY2026 slices.

Spending per capita of $532.17 and $284.15 uses Census where present. The comparison hub holds the tables. The Alaska and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients.

How to read Alaska versus New Hampshire

Read Alaska first on stacked dollars ($3.49B vs $2.48B), spending per capita ($532.17 vs $284.15), and awards (25,423 vs 9,224). Read New Hampshire first on population (1,409,032 vs 740,133) and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $393.9M). Note construction versus small arms and ordnance.

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

Questions

Does Alaska or New Hampshire have more federal spending?

Alaska leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.49B to New Hampshire’s $2.48B. Alaska also leads spending per capita, $532.17 versus $284.15, and awards, 25,423 versus 9,224. New Hampshire has more residents (1,409,032 vs 740,133) and a slim FY2026 lead ($400.4M vs $393.9M).

Does New Hampshire outspend Alaska in FY2026?

Yes on the latest-year slice. The packet reports FY2026 obligations of $400.4M in New Hampshire and $393.9M in Alaska. The all-years stocks still favor Alaska, $3.49B versus $2.48B. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Alaska and New Hampshire?

Alaska’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $3.49B and $2.48B. Award counts are 25,423 in Alaska and 9,224 in New Hampshire.

Are Alaska vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $3.49B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $393.9M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($532.17 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.