Kansas vs Texas on USAspending: $2.9B against $72.7B

A $67.4 per-capita reading on the Plains

Kansas’s $2.9B on 2,970,606 residents produces $67.4 per capita. Texas’s $72.7B on 31,290,831 residents produces $686.1. Kansas is not a tiny Census file. It is a midsize state with a cool obligation load per resident. The dollar ranking ($2.9B vs $72.7B) and the intensity ranking ($67.4 vs $686.1) point the same way.

Kansas still files 71,423 awards, a busy tape relative to $2.9B. Texas files 530,634. Kansas’s row count is about 13 percent of Texas’s; its dollar stock is about 4 percent. Many Kansas actions sit on a smaller average booking than the Texas file implies, though the packet does not publish means.

Systems design in Kansas, pharmaceutical preparations in Texas

Kansas’s lead NAICS is computer systems design services. Texas’s lead NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. A services peak on $2.9B is a different federal buying pattern than a manufacturing peak on $72.7B. Systems-design awards can be professional-services task orders. Pharmaceutical-preparation awards can be large production commitments.

Those labels are peaks, not inventories. The 71,423 Kansas awards and 530,634 Texas awards include many other industries. Use the Kansas and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov for the obligation mix; do not convert the labels into outlay claims.

FY2026: $200.2M versus $21.5B

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $200.2M in Kansas and $21.5B in Texas. Kansas’s latest-year amount is a thin slice of its $2.9B stock. Texas’s $21.5B is a large slice of $72.7B. Recency widens Texas’s lead relative to the all-years comparison.

Treat FY2026 as a recency cut of USAspending.gov obligations, not as cash paid. Do not divide $200.2M or $21.5B by 71,423 or 530,634 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $67.4 and $686.1 already uses Census counts of 2,970,606 and 31,290,831.

Scale without intensity

Kansas’s 2,970,606 residents would support a much larger stock if obligations tracked Texas’s $686.1 per capita. They do not. The $2.9B file and the $67.4 reading are the facts. Texas’s 31,290,831 residents sit on $72.7B. Population explains some of the dollar gap. It does not explain a tenfold per-capita gap.

Kansas’s 71,423 awards show that the Plains file is not empty of federal actions. It is empty of Texas-scale dollars. Keep the comparison labeled as obligations. Outlays are not in the packet.

A services tape that does not buy Texas intensity

Kansas’s computer-systems-design peak on $2.9B is a professional-services signature. Services awards can be numerous without being large. Kansas’s 71,423 awards on $2.9B fit that pattern next to Texas’s 530,634 awards on $72.7B. The Plains file is busy enough in rows to show real federal activity. It is not busy enough in dollars to approach $72.7B or $686.1 per capita.

FY2026 of $200.2M in Kansas versus $21.5B in Texas is the recency cut that widens Texas’s lead. Kansas’s latest-year amount is a thin slice of $2.9B. Texas’s $21.5B is a large slice of $72.7B. Treat both as USAspending.gov obligations. Cash paid can lag. The packet does not list outlays.

Census counts of 2,970,606 and 31,290,831 are the only population figures in this comparison. Kansas is not a tiny state. Its $67.4 per-capita reading on $2.9B is the cool intensity line. Texas’s $686.1 on $72.7B is the hot line. Use the Kansas and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients. The comparison hub holds the head-to-head tables.

Kansas’s 71,423 awards on 2,970,606 residents are the volume side of a cool $67.4 file. Texas’s 530,634 awards on 31,290,831 residents are the volume side of a $686.1 file. The systems-design peak and the pharmaceutical-preparation peak sit on $2.9B and $72.7B. FY2026 of $200.2M versus $21.5B is the same USAspending.gov obligation series, sliced. Cash paid is not in the packet.

How to read Kansas versus Texas

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $2.9B), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $67.4), award count (530,634 vs 71,423), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $200.2M). Read Kansas for the computer systems design peak against Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak, and for a 71,423-row tape on a cool $67.4 per-capita reading.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Kansas and Texas hubs hold agencies and recipients. Census population of 2,970,606 and 31,290,831 is the per-capita denominator where present. Outlays are a different USAspending.gov series.

Questions

Does Kansas or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Kansas’s $2.9B. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $67.4, on 31,290,831 residents against Kansas’s 2,970,606. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 71,423 in Kansas. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $200.2M in Kansas.

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

The packet reports $67.4 per capita in Kansas on 2,970,606 residents and $686.1 in Texas on 31,290,831. Stacked stocks are $2.9B versus $72.7B, a larger multiple than the population gap. Award counts are 71,423 versus 530,634. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Kansas and Texas?

Kansas’s top industry is computer systems design services. Texas’s is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.9B and $72.7B. Award counts are 71,423 in Kansas and 530,634 in Texas. Those peaks are mix labels on the stacked stocks, not inventories of every award.

Are Kansas vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.9B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $200.2M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($67.4 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.