Alaska vs Texas on USAspending: $3.5B against $72.7B

The $532.17 reading is the Alaska story

Alaska’s 740,133 residents are about 2 percent of Texas’s 31,290,831. Alaska’s $3.5B is about 5 percent of Texas’s $72.7B. That is why per capita of $532.17 versus $686.1 is a close intensity pairing even though the stacked totals are not. Alaska is a small Census file with a heavy obligation load per resident. Texas is a large Census file that is still heavier per resident, but not by the same multiple as the dollar stock.

Award counts run with scale, not with intensity. Alaska files 25,423 awards; Texas files 530,634. Alaska’s actions are few. Its dollars per resident are not. The 25,423-row tape sits on $3.5B beside the $532.17 reading. Texas’s 530,634 rows sit on $72.7B beside $686.1.

Building construction in Alaska, drug manufacturing in Texas

Alaska’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. Texas’s lead NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. A construction peak on a $3.5B remote-state file often reflects facilities, bases, and federal building work. A pharmaceutical-preparation peak on a $72.7B file is a manufacturing mix label. Neither peak is the whole statewide aggregate.

The 25,423 Alaska awards and 530,634 Texas awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Alaska and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes. Cite USAspending.gov; do not read them as outlay mixes.

FY2026 still belongs to Texas on dollars

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $393.9M in Alaska and $21.5B in Texas. Recency does not close the stacked gap. Alaska’s latest-year amount is a noticeable slice of $3.5B; Texas’s $21.5B is a noticeable slice of $72.7B. The latest year still ranks Texas first by a wide dollar margin.

Do not divide $393.9M or $21.5B by 25,423 or 530,634 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $532.17 and $686.1 already uses Census denominators of 740,133 and 31,290,831 against the stacked stocks. FY2026 is a recency slice of obligations, not Treasury cash.

A 740,133 Census count next to 31 million

Alaska’s population is 740,133. Texas’s is 31,290,831. That is the most lopsided Census pairing in this slice that still produces a competitive per-capita reading. The $532.17 versus $686.1 comparison is the reason to open this page rather than stop at $3.5B versus $72.7B.

Keep those per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations. They are not outlays per resident. Place-of-performance can differ from recipient headquarters. The packet does not adjust for that.

Remote construction dollars versus a $72.7B manufacturing stack

Alaska’s commercial-and-institutional-building peak on $3.5B is a facilities signature in a state with 740,133 residents. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak on $72.7B is a manufacturing signature in a state with 31,290,831 residents. The interesting comparison is not that Texas books more dollars — $72.7B versus $3.5B makes that obvious — but that Alaska’s $532.17 per capita is in shouting distance of Texas’s $686.1. Few small-population files in this slice sit that close to Texas on intensity.

FY2026 of $393.9M in Alaska versus $21.5B in Texas does not close the stacked gap. It restates Texas’s recency lead while leaving Alaska’s intensity story intact. Award counts of 25,423 versus 530,634 restates Texas’s volume lead. The 25,423 Alaska actions are few; the $3.5B stock on 740,133 residents is not light. Cite USAspending.gov for obligations. Do not convert $532.17 or $686.1 into outlays per resident.

Place-of-performance for Alaska construction can sit at a job site, a base, or a federal building while contractors are headquartered in the Lower 48. The packet does not reallocate those dollars. Texas’s 530,634 awards similarly mix in-state plants with out-of-state suppliers. Use the Alaska and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients rather than treating the lead NAICS as the whole file.

How to read Alaska versus Texas

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $3.5B), award count (530,634 vs 25,423), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $393.9M). Read Alaska first on intensity: $532.17 per capita on 740,133 residents, not far behind Texas’s $686.1. Note construction versus pharmaceutical preparation as mix labels.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Alaska and Texas hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. This page stays on USAspending.gov obligations.

Questions

Does Alaska or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Alaska’s $3.5B. Spending per capita is closer: $686.1 in Texas versus $532.17 in Alaska, on 31,290,831 residents against 740,133. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 25,423 in Alaska. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $393.9M in Alaska.

Why is Alaska’s per-capita figure near Texas’s?

The packet reports $532.17 per capita in Alaska on 740,133 residents and $686.1 in Texas on 31,290,831. Alaska’s $3.5B stock is small in dollars but heavy relative to its Census count. Texas’s $72.7B is larger on both dollars and people. Award counts are 25,423 versus 530,634. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Alaska and Texas?

Alaska’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Texas’s is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $3.5B and $72.7B. Award counts are 25,423 in Alaska and 530,634 in Texas. Those peaks are mix labels on the stacked stocks, not inventories of every award.

Are Alaska vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $3.5B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $393.9M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($532.17 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.