Oregon vs Texas on USAspending: $2.7B against $72.7B

Forestry support on a $2.7B Pacific file

Oregon’s lead NAICS is support activities for forestry. That is a land-and-resource label, not a manufacturing label. It sits on $2.7B against Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation peak. The comparison is a resource-management mix versus a drug-manufacturing mix, and a small stacked stock versus a large one.

Oregon files 36,965 awards. Texas files 530,634. Oregon’s tape is thin in both rows and dollars. The forestry-support peak is a first read of mix. It is not a claim that every Oregon award is a timber contract. Use the Oregon and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients.

The $56.06 per-capita gap

Oregon’s $56.06 on 4,272,371 residents is far below Texas’s $686.1 on 31,290,831. Oregon’s Census count is about 14 percent of Texas’s; Oregon’s $2.7B is about 4 percent of Texas’s $72.7B. Dollars lag population. Intensity follows the dollars.

Cite USAspending.gov for both the stacked totals and the per-capita figures. Those per-capita lines are Census-based packet figures on obligations. They are not outlays per resident.

FY2026: $239.5M versus $21.5B

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $239.5M in Oregon and $21.5B in Texas. Oregon’s latest-year amount is a modest slice of $2.7B. Texas’s $21.5B is a large slice of $72.7B. Recency does not reorder the pair. It restates Texas’s lead.

Do not divide $239.5M or $21.5B by 36,965 or 530,634 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $56.06 and $686.1 already uses Census denominators of 4,272,371 and 31,290,831. FY2026 is a recency slice of obligations, not Treasury cash.

A thin award tape on the Oregon side

36,965 Oregon awards against 530,634 Texas awards is about 7 percent of the Texas row count. Combined with $2.7B versus $72.7B, Oregon is small on both axes. The forestry-support label does not make the file large. It makes the file distinctive.

Keep every dollar labeled as a USAspending.gov obligation. Outlays would require a different table. Place-of-performance for forestry support can sit in national forests and contractor yards. The packet does not reallocate those locations.

Forestry support does not scale like pharmaceutical preparations

Oregon’s support-activities-for-forestry peak on $2.7B is a land-and-resource signature. It is one of the few non-manufacturing, non-construction, non-logistics peaks in this Texas slice. That distinctiveness does not make $2.7B comparable to $72.7B. Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak remains a manufacturing mix on a much larger stack. Oregon’s 36,965 awards versus Texas’s 530,634 remain a thin tape.

The $56.06 per-capita reading on 4,272,371 residents is the cool intensity line. Texas’s $686.1 on 31,290,831 is the hot line. FY2026 of $239.5M versus $21.5B restates Texas’s recency lead. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are not listed. Forestry-support place-of-performance can sit in national forests and contractor yards. The packet does not reallocate those locations to recipient headquarters.

Use the Oregon and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients. The comparison hub holds the $2.7B versus $72.7B tables. Keep the forestry-support label as a mix tag. It describes Oregon’s largest slice. It does not describe every one of the 36,965 awards, and it does not describe Texas’s 530,634-row file at all.

Oregon’s 36,965 awards on 4,272,371 residents under $56.06 per capita describe a thin Pacific file. Forestry support is a distinctive mix tag on $2.7B. It does not compete with Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation stock or $686.1 reading on 31,290,831 residents. FY2026 of $239.5M versus $21.5B is obligations, not cash. The 530,634 Texas awards remain the volume side.

How to read Oregon versus Texas

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $2.7B), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $56.06), award count (530,634 vs 36,965), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $239.5M). Read Oregon for the forestry-support peak against Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Oregon and Texas hubs hold agencies and recipients. Census counts of 4,272,371 and 31,290,831 are the per-capita denominators where present. Outlays are not listed.

Oregon’s 4,272,371 residents and Texas’s 31,290,831 residents set the $56.06 versus $686.1 denominators on $2.7B versus $72.7B. Award counts of 36,965 versus 530,634 and FY2026 of $239.5M versus $21.5B complete the comparison. Forestry support versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains the mix contrast. Cite USAspending.gov. Keep every dollar labeled as an obligation, not an outlay.

Questions

Does Oregon or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Oregon’s $2.7B. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $56.06, on 31,290,831 residents against Oregon’s 4,272,371. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 36,965 in Oregon. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $239.5M in Oregon.

What is Oregon’s lead federal industry versus Texas?

Oregon’s top industry is support activities for forestry. Texas’s is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $2.7B and $72.7B. Award counts are 36,965 in Oregon and 530,634 in Texas. The figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Why is Oregon’s per-capita figure so low?

The packet reports $56.06 per capita in Oregon on 4,272,371 residents and $686.1 in Texas on 31,290,831. Stacked stocks are $2.7B versus $72.7B, a larger multiple than the population gap. Award counts are 36,965 versus 530,634. The packet lists USAspending.gov obligations only.

Are Oregon vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.7B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $239.5M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($56.06 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.