New Hampshire vs Tennessee on USAspending: $2.48B vs $3.58B

A small award file on a $2.48B stock

New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards sit on $2.48B. Tennessee’s 63,616 awards sit on $3.58B. The row gap is large; the dollar gap is smaller. New Hampshire’s file is sparse in actions and still large in stock relative to its 1,409,032 Census count.

Spending per capita follows that pattern: $284.15 in New Hampshire versus $97.50 in Tennessee on 7,227,750 residents. Headcount sets Tennessee’s stock lead. It does not set intensity.

FY2026 favors Tennessee on recency: $704.7M versus $400.4M. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked stocks and the latest-year amounts. Outlays are not in the packet.

New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B are sparse. Tennessee’s 63,616 awards on $3.58B are busier. Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing versus couriers and express delivery services is mix on those USAspending.gov obligation stocks.

FY2026 of $400.4M versus $704.7M keeps Tennessee ahead on recency. Spending per capita of $284.15 versus $97.50 keeps New Hampshire ahead on intensity. Census counts of 1,409,032 and 7,227,750 already sit in the packet. Outlays are not listed.

Small arms and ordnance versus couriers

New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Tennessee’s lead NAICS is couriers and express delivery services. Those peaks sit on $2.48B and $3.58B. An ordnance peak is a first read on New Hampshire’s mix; a courier peak is a first read on Tennessee’s mix.

The 9,224 New Hampshire awards and 63,616 Tennessee awards include many actions outside those labels. Use the New Hampshire and Tennessee state hubs for agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $400.4M versus $704.7M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $704.7M in Tennessee. Recency preserves Tennessee’s stacked dollar lead. Treat the year as a recency slice of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $400.4M or $704.7M by 9,224 or 63,616 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $284.15 and $97.50 already sits beside Census counts of 1,409,032 and 7,227,750.

Five times the people, a cooler ratio

Tennessee’s 7,227,750 residents dwarf New Hampshire’s 1,409,032. Tennessee still leads on $3.58B versus $2.48B. New Hampshire leads on $284.15 versus $97.50 per capita. Award volume of 63,616 versus 9,224 is Tennessee’s win on rows.

Keep those per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations. They are not outlays per resident.

Nine thousand awards on a $2.48B New Hampshire stock

New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on $2.48B are sparse in rows and large in stock relative to 1,409,032 residents. Tennessee’s 63,616 awards on $3.58B are busier on 7,227,750 residents. Both files are USAspending.gov obligations.

Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing lead New Hampshire. Couriers and express delivery services lead Tennessee. Spending per capita of $284.15 versus $97.50 is the intensity split.

FY2026 of $400.4M versus $704.7M keeps Tennessee ahead on recency. That slice is not cash. Outlays are not in the packet.

A small-arms-and-ordnance peak on $2.48B does not mean every New Hampshire award is munitions. A courier peak on $3.58B does not mean every Tennessee award is a delivery contract. Peak NAICS is the largest slice.

Use the New Hampshire and Tennessee state hubs for agencies and recipients. Use the comparison hub for tables. Keep $284.15 and $97.50 labeled as Census-based obligation ratios.

How to read New Hampshire versus Tennessee

Read Tennessee first on stacked dollars ($3.58B vs $2.48B), population (7,227,750 vs 1,409,032), awards (63,616 vs 9,224), and FY2026 ($704.7M vs $400.4M). Read New Hampshire first on spending per capita ($284.15 vs $97.50). Note small arms and ordnance versus couriers.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The New Hampshire and Tennessee hubs hold agencies and recipients. Outlays are a different series.

Questions

Does New Hampshire or Tennessee have more federal spending?

Tennessee leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.58B to New Hampshire’s $2.48B. New Hampshire leads spending per capita, $284.15 versus $97.50, on 1,409,032 residents against Tennessee’s 7,227,750. Tennessee has more awards (63,616 vs 9,224). FY2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $704.7M in Tennessee.

Why does New Hampshire have so few awards?

The packet reports 9,224 awards in New Hampshire and 63,616 in Tennessee. New Hampshire’s stacked stock is $2.48B versus $3.58B. Population is 1,409,032 versus 7,227,750. Award count is a row total, not average size. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in New Hampshire and Tennessee?

New Hampshire’s top industry is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Tennessee’s is couriers and express delivery services. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.48B and $3.58B. Award counts are 9,224 in New Hampshire and 63,616 in Tennessee.

Are New Hampshire vs Tennessee figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.48B and $3.58B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $400.4M and $704.7M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($284.15 vs $97.50) uses Census population where present.