New Mexico vs Oregon on USAspending: $3.93B vs $2.67B

Oregon’s larger population, New Mexico’s larger obligation stock

New Mexico’s $3.93B stacked total is about 1.47 times Oregon’s $2.67B. Oregon’s Census count of 4,272,371 is about 2.00 times New Mexico’s 2,130,256. Intensity therefore runs with dollars and against people: $945.82 per capita in New Mexico and $56.06 in Oregon. Among the pairs in this batch, that published ratio gap is one of the widest. The figures are packet ratios of USAspending.gov obligations beside Census population, not outlays per resident.

Oregon still files more awards, 36,965 against 19,233. A longer Oregon list on $2.67B does not overtake New Mexico’s $3.93B. Construction as New Mexico’s peak and forestry support as Oregon’s peak are different ways to fill a Western file.

FY2026 then widens the dollar ranking further: $2.01B versus $239.5M.

Commercial construction versus support activities for forestry

New Mexico’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. Oregon’s lead NAICS is support activities for forestry. Construction is New Mexico’s peak on $3.93B and 19,233 awards. Forestry support is Oregon’s peak on $2.67B and 36,965 awards. A construction peak versus a forestry-support peak is specific to this pairing; it does not appear as the industry split in the other New Mexico comparisons in this batch.

Those labels are the largest NAICS slices, not complete profiles. The New Mexico and Oregon state hubs list agencies and recipients. Both peaks are USAspending.gov obligation mixes.

FY2026: $2.01B in New Mexico, $239.5M in Oregon

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $2.01B in New Mexico and $239.5M in Oregon. Recency is not close. $2.01B is about 8.4 times $239.5M, versus 1.47 times on the all-years $3.93B versus $2.67B. A large share of New Mexico’s stacked stock sits in the latest fiscal year in this packet. Oregon’s $239.5M year slice is the smaller recency figure.

Read FY2026 as an obligation year slice. Do not divide $2.01B or $239.5M by 19,233 or 36,965 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $945.82 and $56.06 already uses Census counts of 2,130,256 and 4,272,371.

Twice the people, a cooler $56.06 ratio

Oregon’s 4,272,371 residents versus New Mexico’s 2,130,256 is a clean doubling on the Census column. Oregon also files more awards, 36,965 versus 19,233. Neither advantage produces the larger stock or the hotter ratio. New Mexico’s $3.93B and $945.82 still lead. Oregon’s $2.67B and $56.06 still trail.

Readers ranking by population will put Oregon first. Readers ranking by dollars, dollars per resident, or FY2026 will put New Mexico first. The packet reports both so a forestry-support file and a construction file can be compared without collapsing them into Census size.

Oregon’s 4,272,371 residents and 36,965 awards make it the larger state on those two counts. New Mexico’s $3.93B, $945.82 per capita on 2,130,256 residents, and $2.01B in FY2026 make it the larger and hotter obligation file. Support activities for forestry versus commercial and institutional building construction is the NAICS split on $2.67B versus $3.93B. Forestry support can lengthen a file without producing the stacked lead. Construction can concentrate dollars in 19,233 awards. Keep every ranking on USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

How to read New Mexico versus Oregon

Read New Mexico first on stacked stock ($3.93B vs $2.67B), spending per capita ($945.82 vs $56.06), and FY2026 ($2.01B vs $239.5M). Read Oregon first on awards (36,965 vs 19,233) and population (4,272,371 vs 2,130,256). Note commercial construction versus support activities for forestry. All cuts are obligations.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The New Mexico and Oregon hubs hold state detail. Outlays stay off this page.

Forestry support as Oregon’s peak, construction as New Mexico’s

Support activities for forestry as Oregon’s top industry is specific to this pairing. It sits on $2.67B and 36,965 awards. New Mexico’s commercial and institutional building construction peak sits on $3.93B and 19,233 awards. Forestry support can generate many actions without producing the larger obligation stock. Construction can concentrate dollars in a shorter list. Neither label is a timber harvest figure or a square-footage figure. Those quantities are not in the packet.

Oregon’s 4,272,371 residents versus New Mexico’s 2,130,256, combined with $2.67B versus $3.93B, produce spending per capita of $56.06 versus $945.82. FY2026 obligations of $239.5M versus $2.01B widen the dollar ranking in the latest year. All cuts are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays. The New Mexico and Oregon hubs list agencies and recipients.

Questions

Does New Mexico or Oregon have more federal spending?

New Mexico leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $3.93B to Oregon’s $2.67B. New Mexico also leads spending per capita, $945.82 versus $56.06, on 2,130,256 residents against Oregon’s 4,272,371. Oregon has more awards (36,965 vs 19,233). FY2026 obligations are $2.01B in New Mexico and $239.5M in Oregon.

Why is Oregon’s per-capita figure so much lower?

Oregon’s $2.67B sits on 4,272,371 residents; New Mexico’s $3.93B sits on 2,130,256. Packet ratios are $56.06 versus $945.82. FY2026 obligations are $239.5M versus $2.01B. The figures are USAspending.gov obligations beside Census population, not outlays per resident. Cite only the packet ratios; do not treat them as cash per resident or as a forecast.

What industries lead in New Mexico and Oregon?

New Mexico’s top industry is commercial and institutional building construction. Oregon’s is support activities for forestry. Those labels sit on $3.93B and $2.67B. Award counts are 19,233 in New Mexico and 36,965 in Oregon. Both mixes are USAspending.gov obligations. Those NAICS labels are the largest slices on the stacked stocks, not complete industrial profiles.

Are New Mexico vs Oregon figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $3.93B and $2.67B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $2.01B and $239.5M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($945.82 vs $56.06) uses Census population where present. Spending per capita uses Census population where present and should not be read as cash per resident.