Idaho vs Montana on USAspending: $1.2B vs $1.2B

The same construction peak, twice the Montana intensity

A shared lead NAICS usually invites a copy-paste comparison. This pair refuses it. Commercial and institutional building construction leads both Idaho’s $1.2B file and Montana’s $1.2B file, yet Montana’s $187.18 per capita more than doubles Idaho’s $80.33. Same mix label, different ratio. Cite USAspending.gov.

Population does the intensity work. Idaho’s 2,001,619 residents versus Montana’s 1,137,233 means a matched stacked stock is hotter in the smaller Census count. Idaho’s extra people do not produce an extra stacked dollar lead. They produce a cooler $80.33 reading next to Montana’s $187.18.

Award volume still favors Idaho, 29,667 versus 21,487. The busier construction-led log is the larger-population state. Row count is not average award size. The packet does not report means from 29,667 or 21,487. Do not divide $1.2B by those row totals.

FY2026: $160.8M in Idaho, $212.9M in Montana

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $160.8M in Idaho and $212.9M in Montana. Recency follows Montana’s hotter ratio rather than Idaho’s thicker award log. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash already paid.

Do not divide $160.8M or $212.9M by 29,667 or 21,487 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $80.33 and $187.18 already sits beside Census counts of 2,001,619 and 1,137,233. Cite USAspending.gov for both the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

Why a shared NAICS label is not a shared file

Commercial and institutional building construction is a first read on both mixes, not proof that Idaho and Montana obligated the same work to the same recipients. Agency and recipient detail lives on the Idaho and Montana state hubs. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes. Outlays are not listed.

Idaho’s 29,667 awards versus Montana’s 21,487 still mark a busier Idaho action log on a cooler ratio. Montana’s $212.9M FY2026 slice versus Idaho’s $160.8M marks the recency lead on the smaller Census count. Read mix as shared and intensity as not shared.

Idaho’s extra residents, Montana’s extra ratio

Idaho’s 2,001,619 residents versus Montana’s 1,137,233 is the scale cut. Montana’s $187.18 versus Idaho’s $80.33 is the intensity cut. Stacked dollars sit together at $1.2B versus $1.2B. That three-way split—matched stock, unmatched population, unmatched ratio—is the pair.

Keep every dollar figure labeled as a USAspending.gov obligation. The shared construction peak does not license treating $80.33 and $187.18 as interchangeable. Cite USAspending.gov.

How to read Idaho versus Montana

Read the pair as matched on stacked dollars ($1.2B vs $1.2B) and on lead industry (commercial and institutional building construction). Read Idaho first on population (2,001,619 vs 1,137,233) and awards (29,667 vs 21,487). Read Montana first on spending per capita ($187.18 vs $80.33) and FY2026 ($212.9M vs $160.8M).

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Idaho and Montana hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. Keep $80.33 and $187.18 labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations.

Obligations, outlays, and a shared construction label

An obligation is a commitment in USAspending.gov. An outlay is cash paid later. Idaho’s $1.2B stock, $80.33 per capita, 29,667 awards, and $160.8M FY2026 slice are obligation cuts. Montana’s $1.2B stock, $187.18 per capita, 21,487 awards, and $212.9M FY2026 slice are obligation cuts. This packet does not publish outlays or average award size.

Cite USAspending.gov. The shared commercial and institutional building construction peak remains a mix label on both files. Use the comparison hub for the tables. Population of 2,001,619 versus 1,137,233 belongs with the ratios. Do not let a matched $1.2B stock hide Montana’s $187.18 intensity lead.

Idaho’s 29,667 awards on a $1.2B construction-led stock remain the busier Mountain West log. Montana’s 21,487 awards on a $1.2B construction-led stock remain the hotter-ratio log at $187.18 per capita versus $80.33. FY2026 of $212.9M versus $160.8M follows Montana. Census counts of 2,001,619 versus 1,137,233 belong with those ratios. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are omitted. Average award size is omitted. The comparison hub holds the tables; the Idaho and Montana hubs hold agencies and recipients.

Keep $1.2B versus $1.2B labeled as stacked USAspending.gov obligations. The shared commercial and institutional building construction peak does not make $80.33 and $187.18 interchangeable. Cite USAspending.gov. Population of 2,001,619 versus 1,137,233 remains the Census cut behind those ratios.

Questions

Does Idaho or Montana have more federal spending?

Stacked USAspending.gov obligations are matched at $1.2B in Idaho and $1.2B in Montana. Montana leads spending per capita ($187.18 vs $80.33) and FY2026 obligations ($212.9M vs $160.8M). Idaho has more people (2,001,619 vs 1,137,233) and more awards (29,667 vs 21,487).

Do Idaho and Montana share a lead industry?

Yes. Commercial and institutional building construction is the top NAICS label in both states. Those peaks sit on matched $1.2B stocks. Intensity still differs: $80.33 per capita in Idaho on 2,001,619 residents versus $187.18 in Montana on 1,137,233. Award counts are 29,667 versus 21,487.

Why is Montana’s per-capita figure so much higher?

The packet reports $187.18 per capita in Montana on 1,137,233 residents and $80.33 in Idaho on 2,001,619. Stacked stocks are matched at $1.2B versus $1.2B. A smaller Census count on a matched stock produces the hotter ratio. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Are Idaho vs Montana figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.2B and $1.2B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $160.8M and $212.9M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag behind commitments. Spending per capita ($80.33 vs $187.18) uses Census population where present. This packet does not publish outlays.