New Hampshire vs Texas on USAspending: $2.5B against $72.7B

9,224 awards on $2.5B

New Hampshire’s award count is the distinctive fact. 9,224 actions on $2.5B is a concentrated file. Texas’s 530,634 actions on $72.7B is a broad file. New Hampshire’s small-arms and ordnance peak is consistent with a few large manufacturing commitments rather than a high-frequency logistics tape. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak sits inside a much larger 530,634-row mix.

Population is 1,409,032 versus 31,290,831. New Hampshire is small on people and small on dollars, and still warmer per capita ($284.15) than many larger states in this slice. Texas remains higher at $686.1. Intensity is not inverted. Concentration of awards is.

Ordnance manufacturing versus pharmaceutical preparations

New Hampshire’s lead NAICS is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Texas’s lead NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Two manufacturing peaks, two products, two scales: $2.5B versus $72.7B. The ordnance label is a first read of New Hampshire’s mix. It is not a count of every plant or every one of the 9,224 awards.

Use the New Hampshire and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov. Do not convert either peak into an outlay category. The packet lists obligations only.

FY2026: $400.4M is a heavy New Hampshire cut

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $400.4M in New Hampshire and $21.5B in Texas. New Hampshire’s latest-year amount is a large slice of $2.5B. Recency is doing real work on the New Hampshire side. Texas’s $21.5B still dwarfs it.

Do not divide $400.4M or $21.5B by 9,224 or 530,634 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $284.15 and $686.1 already uses Census denominators of 1,409,032 and 31,290,831. FY2026 is a recency slice of obligations, not Treasury cash.

A small Census count with a warmer ratio

New Hampshire’s 1,409,032 residents sit on $284.15 per capita. That is well below Texas’s $686.1 on 31,290,831, and well above several larger states that book similar or smaller stocks. The $2.5B file is heavy relative to New Hampshire’s Census count even if it is light relative to Texas’s $72.7B.

Keep those per-capita figures labeled as Census-based packet figures on USAspending.gov obligations. They are not outlays per resident. Place-of-performance for ordnance manufacturing can sit at a plant. The packet does not reallocate suppliers.

Ordnance concentration on a 9,224-row tape

New Hampshire’s small-arms-and-ordnance peak on $2.5B with only 9,224 awards is a concentration signature. Few actions, a $2.5B stock, and a $284.15 per-capita reading on 1,409,032 residents describe a specialty manufacturing file rather than a high-frequency logistics file. Texas’s 530,634 awards on $72.7B describe the opposite: a broad mix with a pharmaceutical-preparation peak and $686.1 per capita on 31,290,831 residents.

FY2026 of $400.4M in New Hampshire is a heavy cut of $2.5B. Recency matters on the New Hampshire side. Texas’s $21.5B still dwarfs it. Cite USAspending.gov for obligations. Do not treat $400.4M as cash paid in FY2026, and do not divide it by 9,224 all-years awards.

Place-of-performance for ordnance manufacturing can sit at a plant. The packet does not reallocate suppliers. Use the New Hampshire and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep 9,224 versus 530,634 labeled as all-years award counts. The comparison hub holds the $2.5B versus $72.7B tables.

New Hampshire’s 9,224 awards on 1,409,032 residents under $284.15 per capita describe concentration, not Texas scale. The ordnance peak sits on $2.5B. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak sits on $72.7B with 530,634 awards and $686.1 on 31,290,831 residents. FY2026 of $400.4M versus $21.5B is a heavy New Hampshire cut of a small stock. Cite USAspending.gov obligations only.

How to read New Hampshire versus Texas

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $2.5B), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $284.15), award count (530,634 vs 9,224), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $400.4M). Read New Hampshire for a concentrated 9,224-row tape, an ordnance-manufacturing peak, and a $400.4M FY2026 slice on $2.5B.

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

New Hampshire’s 1,409,032 residents and Texas’s 31,290,831 residents set the $284.15 versus $686.1 denominators on $2.5B versus $72.7B. Award counts of 9,224 versus 530,634 and FY2026 of $400.4M versus $21.5B complete the comparison. Ordnance manufacturing versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains the mix contrast. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are a different series.

Questions

Does New Hampshire or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to New Hampshire’s $2.5B. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $284.15, on 31,290,831 residents against New Hampshire’s 1,409,032. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 9,224 in New Hampshire. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $400.4M in New Hampshire.

Why does New Hampshire have so few awards?

The packet reports 9,224 awards in New Hampshire on $2.5B versus 530,634 in Texas on $72.7B. New Hampshire’s lead industry is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing, a mix that can concentrate dollars in fewer actions. Spending per capita is $284.15 versus $686.1. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

What industries lead in New Hampshire and Texas?

New Hampshire’s top industry is small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing. Texas’s is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.5B and $72.7B. Award counts are 9,224 in New Hampshire and 530,634 in Texas. Those peaks are mix labels on the stacked stocks, not inventories of every award.

Are New Hampshire vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.5B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $400.4M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($284.15 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.