Idaho vs Texas on USAspending: $1.2B against $72.7B

Two million people, a $80.33 reading

Idaho’s Census count of 2,001,619 is almost the same size as several Plains neighbors, yet the $1.2B stock produces only $80.33 per capita. Texas’s $72.7B on 31,290,831 residents produces $686.1. Idaho is not tiny. It is lightly loaded per resident relative to Texas.

Idaho files 29,667 awards. Texas files 530,634. Idaho’s row count is about 6 percent of Texas’s; its dollar stock is about 2 percent. The Mountain West tape is busier in rows than in dollars, and still far behind Texas on both.

Idaho’s $1.2B construction-led stock on 2,001,619 residents is a Mountain West facilities file with a cool $80.33 reading; Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation stock on 31,290,831 residents carries $686.1. FY2026 of $160.8M versus $21.5B does not reorder that ranking.

Federal buildings in Idaho, drug manufacturing in Texas

Idaho’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. Texas’s lead NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. A construction peak on $1.2B is a facilities mix. A pharmaceutical-preparation peak on $72.7B is a manufacturing mix. Those labels are first reads, not inventories of the 29,667 and 530,634 awards.

Use the Idaho and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov. Construction awards can be lumpy across fiscal years. The packet does not split individual projects.

FY2026: $160.8M versus $21.5B

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $160.8M in Idaho and $21.5B in Texas. Idaho’s latest-year amount is a modest slice of $1.2B. Texas’s $21.5B is a large slice of $72.7B. Recency restates Texas’s lead rather than narrowing it.

Do not divide $160.8M or $21.5B by 29,667 or 530,634 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $80.33 and $686.1 already uses Census denominators of 2,001,619 and 31,290,831. FY2026 is obligations, not outlays.

Construction mix does not close the dollar gap

Idaho’s commercial-and-institutional-building peak describes the largest slice of $1.2B. It does not make Idaho a smaller Texas. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak describes the largest slice of $72.7B. The stacks differ in size, intensity, and lead industry.

Keep every dollar labeled as a USAspending.gov obligation. Outlays are a different series. Place-of-performance for construction can sit at a job site. The packet does not reallocate contractor headquarters.

Two million residents and a cool construction ratio

Idaho’s 2,001,619 residents are a midsize Mountain West Census count. The $1.2B commercial-construction stock produces only $80.33 per capita, against Texas’s $686.1 on 31,290,831 residents and $72.7B. Idaho is not tiny. It is lightly loaded per resident relative to Texas, with 29,667 awards against 530,634. Construction as a lead industry does not by itself produce Texas intensity.

FY2026 of $160.8M versus $21.5B restates Texas’s recency lead. Idaho’s latest-year amount is a modest slice of $1.2B. Cite USAspending.gov for obligations. Do not divide $160.8M by 29,667 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $80.33 and $686.1 already uses the Census denominators.

Place-of-performance for commercial and institutional building construction can sit at a job site. The packet does not reallocate contractor headquarters. Use the Idaho and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients. The comparison hub holds the $1.2B versus $72.7B tables. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak remains a different mix on a different stack.

Idaho’s 29,667 awards on 2,001,619 residents under $80.33 per capita describe a midsize Census file with a cool construction ratio. Commercial building work on $1.2B does not match Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation stock or $686.1 on 31,290,831 residents. FY2026 of $160.8M versus $21.5B restates recency. Texas’s 530,634 awards stay the volume side. Cite USAspending.gov.

How to read Idaho versus Texas

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $1.2B), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $80.33), award count (530,634 vs 29,667), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $160.8M). Read Idaho for the commercial construction peak and for a cool $80.33 reading on 2,001,619 residents.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Idaho and Texas hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are not listed.

Idaho’s 2,001,619 residents and Texas’s 31,290,831 residents set the $80.33 versus $686.1 denominators on $1.2B versus $72.7B. Award counts of 29,667 versus 530,634 and FY2026 of $160.8M versus $21.5B complete the comparison. Commercial construction versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains the mix contrast. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep every dollar labeled as an obligation, not cash paid.

Questions

Does Idaho or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Idaho’s $1.2B. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $80.33, on 31,290,831 residents against Idaho’s 2,001,619. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 29,667 in Idaho. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $160.8M in Idaho.

What industries lead in Idaho and Texas?

Idaho’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Texas’s is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $1.2B and $72.7B. Award counts are 29,667 in Idaho and 530,634 in Texas. Those peaks are mix labels on the stacked stocks, not inventories of every award.

Why is Idaho’s per-capita figure so low versus Texas?

The packet reports $80.33 per capita in Idaho on 2,001,619 residents and $686.1 in Texas on 31,290,831. Stacked stocks are $1.2B versus $72.7B, a larger multiple than the population gap. Award counts are 29,667 versus 530,634. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Are Idaho vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.2B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $160.8M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($80.33 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.