Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which states received the least federal funding per capita in 2025 and why?
Executive summary
Available reporting identifies Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington state among the bottom-ranked states for net federal funding per capita in recent analyses — Rockefeller Institute data showed Massachusetts at −$4,846, New Jersey at −$4,344 and Washington at −$3,494 per resident as of 2022 (reported 2024/2025) [1]. Other compilations and trackers (World Population Review, USAFacts, MoneyGeek, WalletHub) show broadly consistent patterns: high‑income, high‑tax states often send more to Washington than they receive, while states with large federal payrolls, military spending or higher poverty receive more per resident [2] [3] [1] [4].
1. Donor states: who’s at the bottom and what the numbers mean
Rockefeller Institute analysis reported in Axios places Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington among the lowest balance-of-payments per capita (Massachusetts −$4,846; New Jersey −$4,344; Washington −$3,494), meaning residents and businesses in those states pay more in federal taxes than federal spending returns to them on a per‑person basis [1]. World Population Review and other aggregators similarly list New Jersey and Massachusetts as having large negative net funding per resident (New Jersey −$2,368; Massachusetts −$2,343 in that dataset), underscoring that rankings can vary by data vintage and methodology [2].
2. Why wealthy states tend to be “donor” states
Multiple sources link high per‑capita tax payments to greater net outflows: states with higher incomes and strong private-sector wages generate more federal income and payroll tax revenue, which can exceed federal spending returned to residents [3] [5]. The progressive federal tax system concentrates revenue in wealthier states; commentators and state analyses note that states like Massachusetts and New Jersey generate substantial federal receipts but do not receive commensurate per‑capita federal spending [3] [5].
3. Why some states receive more per capita: federal presence and need
Reporting explains that states with lots of federal employees, military bases, and defense contractors — or higher shares of older or low‑income residents eligible for transfer programs — receive more federal dollars per person. The Rockefeller Institute points to federal wages and defense spending as concentrated drivers explaining why states such as Virginia and Maryland show high net inflows [1]. MoneyGeek and WalletHub analyses similarly emphasize federal jobs, Medicaid and other transfer programs as major determinants of federal dependency [4] [6].
4. Methodology matters: different studies, different rankings
Sources use varying timeframes, include or exclude COVID relief, and compute “net federal funding” differently, producing divergent dollar figures and orderings. World Population Review, Axios (summarizing Rockefeller Institute), USAFacts and others each present slightly different per‑capita numbers and cutoffs — for example, World Population Review’s negative net per‑resident figures differ in magnitude from the Rockefeller‑based figures cited by Axios [2] [1]. Analysts warn that including one‑time pandemic aid or focusing on fiscal year snapshots can materially change which states look like donors or recipients [2].
5. Political and policy dimensions: competing interpretations
Reporting frames donor/recipient status both as a neutral fiscal fact and as a political talking point. Some argue that high‑paying states subsidize national priorities; others say federal spending properly targets need [1] [6]. Axios notes political relevance — proposals to shrink federal grants collide with the reality that many states depend on federal funds for disaster relief, health care and food aid — and that legal and policy changes (e.g., freezes or caps) would have uneven impacts [1] [7].
6. What’s not fully answered in current reporting
Available sources do not provide a single, definitive 2025 per‑capita ranking that reconciles every methodological difference — there is no uniformly accepted “2025 list” in the provided material, and long‑term trends versus single‑year anomalies are not fully harmonized across datasets (not found in current reporting). Nor do the sources in this set supply a state‑by‑state breakdown for fiscal year 2025 that unambiguously attributes causes for each state’s position beyond the general drivers [2] [1] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers
If your question is “which states received the least federal funding per capita in 2025,” the best available reporting points to historically donor states — Massachusetts and New Jersey frequently rank among the lowest per capita — with rankings sensitive to the data source and whether one excludes pandemic-era aid [1] [2]. For a final, auditable 2025 ranking you should consult the original datasets (Rockefeller Institute, USAFacts, USASpending.gov) because differences in inclusion rules and year selection materially change the ordering [1] [3] [8].