Does Minnesota or New Hampshire have more federal spending?

Minnesota leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.74B to New Hampshire’s $2.48B. New Hampshire leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $66.07, on 1,409,032 residents against Minnesota’s 5,793,151. Minnesota has more awards (98,897 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $382.8M in Minnesota and $400.4M in New Hampshire.

Does New Hampshire outspend Minnesota in FY2026?

Yes on the latest-year slice. The packet reports FY2026 obligations of $400.4M in New Hampshire and $382.8M in Minnesota. The all-years stocks still favor Minnesota, $2.74B versus $2.48B. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in Minnesota and New Hampshire?

Minnesota’s top industry is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.74B and $2.48B. Award counts are 98,897 in Minnesota and 9,224 in New Hampshire.

Are Minnesota vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.74B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $382.8M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($66.07 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.

← All guides

Minnesota vs New Hampshire on USAspending: $2.74B vs $2.48B

Minnesota’s USAspending.gov obligation stock is $2.74B; New Hampshire’s is $2.48B. Minnesota has more than four times the people—5,793,151 versus 1,409,032—and more than ten times the awards: 98,897 against 9,224. New Hampshire’s spending per capita is $284.15 versus Minnesota’s $66.07. FY2026 obligations are $382.8M in Minnesota and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds lead Minnesota; small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. The figures are obligations, not outlays.

Key figures

Minnesota $2.74B vs New Hampshire $2.48B in stacked USAspending obligations.
New Hampshire per capita $284.15 vs Minnesota $66.07 on 1,409,032 vs 5,793,151 residents.
Awards: 98,897 vs 9,224; FY2026 $382.8M vs $400.4M.
Top industries: pharmacy benefit management in Minnesota; small arms and ordnance in New Hampshire.
Figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not Treasury outlays.

A large Census file against a high-intensity small state

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents produce $2.74B and $66.07 per capita. New Hampshire’s 1,409,032 residents produce $2.48B and $284.15 per capita. The stocks are close; the ratios are not. New Hampshire’s smaller Census count sits on a stock that is not small.

Award volume is Minnesota’s cut. 98,897 awards versus 9,224 means Minnesota’s file is dense in rows. New Hampshire’s 9,224 actions sit on $2.48B beside the $284.15 reading.

FY2026 is a slim New Hampshire recency lead: $400.4M versus $382.8M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts.

Minnesota’s 98,897 awards and 5,793,151 residents produce $2.74B and $66.07 per capita. New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards and 1,409,032 residents produce $2.48B and $284.15 per capita. FY2026 of $382.8M versus $400.4M is a slim New Hampshire recency lead. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds versus small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing is mix. Outlays are not listed. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep per-capita labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

Pharmacy administration versus small arms and ordnance

Minnesota’s lead NAICS is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those peaks sit on $2.74B and $2.48B.

The 98,897 Minnesota awards and 9,224 New Hampshire awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the Minnesota and New Hampshire state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $382.8M versus $400.4M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $382.8M in Minnesota and $400.4M in New Hampshire. Recency does not preserve Minnesota’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $382.8M or $400.4M by 98,897 or 9,224 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $66.07 and $284.15 already sits beside Census counts of 5,793,151 and 1,409,032.

Ten times the awards on a modestly larger Minnesota stock

Minnesota’s 98,897 awards on $2.74B against New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B is the row gap. Intensity runs opposite: $66.07 versus $284.15 on Census counts of 5,793,151 and 1,409,032. All dollar cuts are USAspending.gov obligations.

Pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds lead Minnesota. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. FY2026 of $382.8M versus $400.4M is a slim New Hampshire recency lead.

Outlays are not in the packet. Recency is a slice, not cash. Do not divide latest-year amounts by all-years award counts.

A large Census state versus a high-intensity small state

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents produce the larger stacked stock and the cooler ratio. New Hampshire’s 1,409,032 residents produce $2.48B and $284.15 per capita. Read stock and intensity as separate questions.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Minnesota and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep every dollar figure labeled as an obligation.

How to read Minnesota versus New Hampshire

Read Minnesota first on stacked dollars ($2.74B vs $2.48B), population (5,793,151 vs 1,409,032), and awards (98,897 vs 9,224). Read New Hampshire first on spending per capita ($284.15 vs $66.07) and FY2026 ($400.4M vs $382.8M). Note pharmacy benefit management versus small arms and ordnance.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Minnesota and New Hampshire hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series. Keep per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations.

Questions

Does Minnesota or New Hampshire have more federal spending?: Minnesota leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $2.74B to New Hampshire’s $2.48B. New Hampshire leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $66.07, on 1,409,032 residents against Minnesota’s 5,793,151. Minnesota has more awards (98,897 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $382.8M in Minnesota and $400.4M in New Hampshire.
Does New Hampshire outspend Minnesota in FY2026?: Yes on the latest-year slice. The packet reports FY2026 obligations of $400.4M in New Hampshire and $382.8M in Minnesota. The all-years stocks still favor Minnesota, $2.74B versus $2.48B. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.
What industries lead in Minnesota and New Hampshire?: Minnesota’s top industry is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. New Hampshire’s is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.74B and $2.48B. Award counts are 98,897 in Minnesota and 9,224 in New Hampshire.
Are Minnesota vs New Hampshire figures Treasury outlays?: No. The $2.74B and $2.48B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $382.8M and $400.4M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($66.07 vs $284.15) uses Census population where present.

State comparison from SpendingVault aggregates of USAspending obligations. Per-capita uses Census population where present.