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

A $1.2B construction-led Northern Plains file

Montana’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. That facilities peak sits on $1.2B against Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation peak. Construction awards can be lumpy: a few federal buildings or base projects can move a year. The packet does not split those projects out. It only names the peak.

Montana files 21,487 awards. Texas files 530,634. The Northern Plains tape is thin in rows and dollars. Use the Montana and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov for the obligation mix.

Montana’s $1.2B construction-led stock on 1,137,233 residents is a Northern Plains facilities file; Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation stock on 31,290,831 residents is a manufacturing-scale file. FY2026 of $212.9M versus $21.5B does not reorder that ranking.

$187.18 per capita on 1.1 million people

Montana’s $187.18 on 1,137,233 residents is warmer than several larger states in this slice and still well below Texas’s $686.1 on 31,290,831. Montana’s Census count is about 4 percent of Texas’s; Montana’s $1.2B is about 2 percent of Texas’s $72.7B. Dollars lag population. Intensity follows.

The per-capita figures are Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations. They are not outlays per resident. Place-of-performance for construction can sit at a job site while contractors are headquartered elsewhere. The packet does not reallocate.

FY2026: $212.9M versus $21.5B

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $212.9M in Montana and $21.5B in Texas. Montana’s latest-year amount is a noticeable slice of $1.2B. Texas’s $21.5B remains the larger recency figure by a wide margin. Treat FY2026 as a recency cut of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $212.9M or $21.5B by 21,487 or 530,634 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $187.18 and $686.1 already uses Census denominators of 1,137,233 and 31,290,831.

Construction mix is not Texas scale

A commercial-and-institutional-building peak describes Montana’s largest slice. It does not make $1.2B comparable to $72.7B. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak describes Texas’s largest slice. It does not make every Texas award a drug contract. The 21,487 and 530,634 rows include many other NAICS codes.

Keep every dollar labeled as an obligation. Outlays are a different USAspending.gov series and are not in this packet.

Northern Plains facilities versus Texas manufacturing scale

Montana’s commercial-construction peak on $1.2B with 21,487 awards is a facilities signature in a state with 1,137,233 residents. Construction can be lumpy: a few federal buildings or base projects can move a year. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak on $72.7B with 530,634 awards is a manufacturing signature on a different scale. The $187.18 versus $686.1 per-capita pairing is warmer for Montana than several larger states, and still well below Texas.

FY2026 of $212.9M versus $21.5B restates Texas’s recency lead. Montana’s latest-year amount is a noticeable slice of $1.2B. Cite USAspending.gov for obligations. Do not convert construction dollars into outlays, and do not divide $212.9M by 21,487 all-years awards.

Place-of-performance for construction can sit at a job site while contractors are headquartered elsewhere. The packet does not reallocate. Use the Montana and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep Census counts of 1,137,233 and 31,290,831 as the per-capita denominators where present. The comparison hub holds the $1.2B versus $72.7B tables.

Montana’s 21,487 awards on 1,137,233 residents under $187.18 per capita describe a small construction-led file that is warmer per resident than several larger states and still far below Texas’s $686.1 on 31,290,831. The $1.2B stock versus $72.7B is the scale fact. FY2026 of $212.9M versus $21.5B is the recency fact. Texas’s 530,634 awards stay the volume side. Cite USAspending.gov.

How to read Montana versus Texas

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $1.2B), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $187.18), award count (530,634 vs 21,487), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $212.9M). Read Montana for the commercial construction peak and for a $187.18 per-capita reading on 1,137,233 residents.

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

Montana’s 1,137,233 residents and Texas’s 31,290,831 residents set the $187.18 versus $686.1 denominators on $1.2B versus $72.7B. Award counts of 21,487 versus 530,634 and FY2026 of $212.9M versus $21.5B complete the comparison. Commercial construction versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains the mix contrast. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are not listed in this packet.

Questions

Does Montana or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Montana’s $1.2B. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $187.18, on 31,290,831 residents against Montana’s 1,137,233. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 21,487 in Montana. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $212.9M in Montana.

What industries lead in Montana and Texas?

Montana’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 21,487 in Montana and 530,634 in Texas. Those peaks are mix labels on the stacked stocks, not inventories of every award.

Why is Montana’s per-capita figure below Texas’s?

The packet reports $187.18 per capita in Montana on 1,137,233 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 21,487 versus 530,634. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Are Montana vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $1.2B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $212.9M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($187.18 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.