Texas vs Wyoming on USAspending: $72.7B against $598.9M

The smallest Census count in this Texas slice

Wyoming’s 587,618 residents are the smallest population in this set of Texas pairings. The $598.9M stock produces $126.96 per capita — cooler than Texas’s $686.1, and warmer than several larger states with similar or smaller stocks. Headcount is tiny. Intensity is not the lowest in the slice.

Wyoming files 9,330 awards. Texas files 530,634. The Wyoming tape is thin, consistent with a construction-led mix on $598.9M rather than a high-frequency logistics file. Cite USAspending.gov for the stacked totals and the award counts.

Wyoming’s $598.9M construction-led stock on 587,618 residents is the smallest Census file in this Texas slice; Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation stock on 31,290,831 residents remains the scale file. FY2026 of $74.6M versus $21.5B does not reorder that ranking.

Construction in Wyoming, pharmaceutical preparations in Texas

Wyoming’s lead NAICS is commercial and institutional building construction. Texas’s lead NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. A facilities peak on $598.9M is a different federal buying pattern than a drug-manufacturing peak on $72.7B. Construction awards can be lumpy across fiscal years. The packet does not split projects.

Use the Wyoming and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. The 9,330 and 530,634 rows include many other NAICS codes. Do not treat either peak as an outlay category.

FY2026: $21.5B versus $74.6M

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $74.6M in Wyoming. Wyoming’s latest-year amount is a noticeable slice of $598.9M. Texas’s $21.5B is a large slice of $72.7B. Recency restates Texas’s dollar lead.

Do not divide $21.5B or $74.6M by 530,634 or 9,330 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $686.1 and $126.96 already uses Census denominators of 31,290,831 and 587,618. FY2026 is obligations, not Treasury cash.

What $126.96 per capita records

Wyoming’s $126.96 on 587,618 residents is the intensity line that keeps this pairing from being only a scale story. Texas still leads on $686.1. Wyoming’s reading is heavier than a $598.9M stock on a tiny Census count might look at first glance, because the denominator is only 587,618.

Keep those figures labeled as 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. The packet does not reallocate contractor headquarters.

The smallest denominator in the Texas slice

Wyoming’s 587,618 residents are the smallest Census count among these Texas pairings. That small denominator is why $126.96 per capita on a $598.9M stock is warmer than several larger states with similar or smaller stocks. Texas still leads on $686.1 and on $72.7B. Wyoming files 9,330 awards against Texas’s 530,634. Commercial construction leads Wyoming; pharmaceutical preparations lead Texas.

FY2026 of $74.6M versus $21.5B restates Texas’s recency lead. Wyoming’s latest-year amount is a noticeable slice of $598.9M. Cite USAspending.gov for obligations. Do not convert construction dollars into outlays, and do not divide $74.6M by 9,330 all-years awards.

Place-of-performance for commercial and institutional building construction can sit at a job site. The packet does not reallocate contractor headquarters. Use the Wyoming and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients. The comparison hub holds the $598.9M versus $72.7B tables. Keep 587,618 and 31,290,831 as the per-capita denominators where present.

Wyoming’s 9,330 awards on 587,618 residents under $126.96 per capita describe a tiny Census file that is not the coolest intensity in the slice. Commercial construction on $598.9M is still far from Texas’s $72.7B pharmaceutical-preparation stock, $686.1 on 31,290,831 residents, 530,634 awards, and $21.5B FY2026. FY2026 of $74.6M is a noticeable Wyoming cut. Cite USAspending.gov.

How to read Texas versus Wyoming

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $598.9M), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $126.96), award count (530,634 vs 9,330), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $74.6M). Read Wyoming for the commercial-construction peak and for a $126.96 reading on 587,618 residents.

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

Wyoming’s 587,618 residents and Texas’s 31,290,831 residents set the $126.96 versus $686.1 denominators on $598.9M versus $72.7B. Award counts of 9,330 versus 530,634 and FY2026 of $74.6M versus $21.5B complete the comparison. Commercial construction versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains the mix contrast. Cite USAspending.gov. Obligations, not Treasury cash.

Questions

Does Texas or Wyoming have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Wyoming’s $598.9M. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $126.96, on 31,290,831 residents against Wyoming’s 587,618. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 9,330 in Wyoming. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $74.6M in Wyoming.

What industries lead in Texas and Wyoming?

Texas’s top industry is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Wyoming’s is commercial and institutional building construction. Those labels are the largest NAICS slices on $72.7B and $598.9M. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 9,330 in Wyoming. Those peaks are mix labels on the stacked stocks, not inventories of every award.

Is Wyoming’s per-capita figure closer to Texas than the dollar gap suggests?

The packet reports $126.96 per capita in Wyoming on 587,618 residents and $686.1 in Texas on 31,290,831. Stacked stocks are $598.9M versus $72.7B. Wyoming’s small Census denominator lifts the per-capita reading relative to the dollar gap. These figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Are Texas vs Wyoming figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $72.7B and $598.9M totals, and FY2026 amounts of $21.5B and $74.6M, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($686.1 vs $126.96) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.