Alaska vs Virginia on USAspending: a small state with a heavy per-person load

Three and a half billion dollars on a 740,133-person base

USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays, put Alaska at $3.5B and Virginia at $110.8B. Virginia’s total is about 32 times Alaska’s. Virginia’s population is about 12 times Alaska’s 740,133. The leftover after that population ratio is still a large dollar gap, which is why per capita remains higher in Virginia ($1,344.24 vs $532.17).

Award counts are 25,423 in Alaska and 1,116,647 in Virginia. Alaska’s file is thin in count and thick relative to population. Remote construction, military installations, and federal facilities in a huge land area can produce lumpy obligations without producing Virginia’s award volume.

Per capita is Alaska’s distinctive column

At $532.17 per resident, Alaska is in a different per-capita band than the $80–$150 states that also sit near a few billion dollars in this comparison set. Virginia still leads at $1,344.24. The $532.17 figure is the reason Alaska should not be grouped mentally with every other $3.5B-class state.

Divide $3.5B by 740,133 and the arithmetic is straightforward. Divide $110.8B by 8,811,195 and Virginia still comes out higher. Both divisions use Census population. Neither is an outlay per taxpayer.

Federal building construction vs computer services

Alaska’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Virginia’s is other computer related services. Construction on federal sites in Alaska — housing, hangars, clinics, offices — is a different obligation mix than the IT-services awards that dominate Virginia’s lead slice.

Construction-led files are often lumpy: a few large projects can move $3.5B. Services-led files like Virginia’s 1,116,647 awards stack many smaller professional actions into $110.8B. The industry labels mark that difference without describing every award.

FY2026: $393.9M vs $11.8B

FY2026 obligations are $393.9M in Alaska and $11.8B in Virginia. Alaska’s latest year is a visible share of the $3.5B stack; Virginia’s latest year is one layer of $110.8B. Multi-year construction obligated earlier can still be paying out in FY2026, which is why the stacked total and the latest-year cut answer different questions.

Alaska’s $393.9M in FY2026 is a visible share of $3.5B; remote construction often lands in lumps rather than in a smooth annual stream. Virginia’s $11.8B latest year inside $110.8B is a large current slice of a still-larger stock. Alaska’s 25,423 all-years awards should not be treated as FY2026-only actions. Per capita of $532.17 on 740,133 residents versus $1,344.24 on 8,811,195 residents is the intensity comparison that already uses the small Alaska denominator. Both cuts are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Reading an Arctic state against a capital-region state

This pair is a geography lesson as much as a ranking. Alaska’s $3.5B is federal work booked to a vast, sparsely populated state. Virginia’s $110.8B is federal work booked to a dense contractor market. Neither figure is a Treasury outlay total. State hubs for Alaska and Virginia hold the agency and recipient tables. Alaska’s $3.5B can include large, remote construction actions that do not resemble Virginia’s computer-services task orders. The comparison is still the same unit: USAspending.gov obligations by place of performance, not acres of federal land and not Treasury outlays.

Federal land and military geography in Alaska are not substitute metrics for $3.5B. This table scores award obligations with an Alaska or Virginia place of performance. Commercial and institutional building construction versus other computer related services is mix. A hangar project and an IT task order can both be obligations without being comparable as work. Open the Alaska and Virginia state hubs for agencies and recipients.

How to place Alaska without reducing it to a small-state footnote

Alaska is small in people (740,133) and not tiny in stacked obligations ($3.5B). Virginia is large in both people (8,811,195) and dollars ($110.8B). Per capita of $532.17 versus $1,344.24 is the column that captures Alaska’s heavier-than-headline load without pretending the $3.5B file matches $110.8B.

FY2026 ($393.9M vs $11.8B) is recency. Award counts (25,423 vs 1,116,647) show a thin row file. Commercial and institutional building construction versus other computer related services is mix. Obligations are not outlays; a construction award can pay out across years after the obligation is recorded.

Questions

How much federal spending is in Alaska vs Virginia?

Alaska has $3.5B in USAspending.gov obligations and 25,423 awards; Virginia has $110.8B and 1,116,647 awards. Alaska’s Census population is 740,133; Virginia’s is 8,811,195. Spending per capita is $532.17 versus $1,344.24. FY2026 obligations are $393.9M and $11.8B. These are obligations, not Treasury outlays.

Why is Alaska’s per-capita federal spending relatively high?

Alaska’s $3.5B is divided across only 740,133 residents, producing $532.17 per capita. Virginia’s $110.8B across 8,811,195 residents produces $1,344.24. Alaska is still below Virginia per person, but $532.17 is far above many states with similar headline totals because the denominator is so small.

What is Alaska’s top federal contracting industry vs Virginia’s?

Alaska’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Virginia’s is other computer related services. Those slices sit on $3.5B and $110.8B in obligations. Construction projects can be large and infrequent; computer-services awards in Virginia are numerous (1,116,647 awards in the state file).

Are Alaska and Virginia figures from Treasury outlay data?

No. They come from USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments that may follow later. The $3.5B and $110.8B aggregates, and FY2026 amounts of $393.9M and $11.8B, measure commitments on awards with a place of performance in each state, not checks issued by Treasury.