What are the top 5 states that receive the most federal funding per capita as of 2025?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is strong consensus on the top 5 states that receive the most federal funding per capita as of 2025. Multiple sources confirm that Alaska, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, and South Carolina are the states most dependent on federal funding ^{[1] [2]}.

Alaska stands out as the clear leader, receiving over 50% of its revenue from federal funding and $24,141 per person in federal money ^{[1] [3]}. This extraordinary level of federal dependence makes Alaska an outlier compared to all other states. The remaining four states - Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, and South Carolina - also receive significant amounts of federal funding, though at lower levels than Alaska ^{[1] [2]}.

However, the analyses reveal some important nuances in how federal funding is measured. One source provides additional data showing that when measuring federal funding per capita, Virginia received $22,085 per person and New Mexico received $19,720 ^[3]. Another analysis indicates that New Mexico had the highest balance of payments per capita at $14,781, followed by Maryland at $12,265 and Virginia at $11,577 ^[4]. This suggests there may be different methodologies for calculating federal dependency versus raw federal funding amounts.

The data also reveals that 31 states plus the District of Columbia received more federal money than they paid in federal taxes ^[5], with New Mexico serving as a prime example by receiving $41.8 billion back in federal funds after sending only $12.4 billion in taxes to the federal government.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several critical contextual elements that would provide a more complete understanding of federal funding distribution. First, the analyses reveal there are multiple ways to measure federal dependency - some sources focus on the percentage of state revenue derived from federal sources, while others examine raw dollar amounts per capita or net balance of payments ^{[6] [4] [5]}.

Geographic and economic factors play a crucial role that isn't addressed in the original question. Alaska's unique position as the most federally dependent state likely reflects its remote location, sparse population, and unique infrastructure needs, though this context isn't explicitly provided in the analyses.

The analyses also highlight sectoral variations in federal funding. One source mentions that California receives almost $175 billion in federal funds in its 2025-26 state budget, representing one-third of the state's total budget ^[7]. This demonstrates that large states may receive enormous absolute amounts of federal funding while still maintaining lower per-capita dependency rates.

Educational funding represents another missing dimension, with one analysis noting that all states and territories are facing severe impacts due to the withholding of an estimated $6.2 billion in federal K-12 funding ^[8]. This suggests that federal funding patterns may be shifting due to policy changes or budget constraints.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain explicit misinformation, but it oversimplifies a complex topic by requesting a single ranking without acknowledging the multiple methodologies used to measure federal dependency. This could lead to misleading conclusions about state-federal fiscal relationships.

The question's framing as "federal funding per capita" may inadvertently bias readers toward viewing this as purely a matter of state dependency or inefficiency, without considering legitimate reasons why certain states might require more federal support, such as geographic challenges, economic conditions, or demographic factors.

Additionally, the question doesn't distinguish between different types of federal funding - whether it includes defense spending, infrastructure investments, social programs, or disaster relief - all of which serve different purposes and have different policy implications. This lack of specificity could lead to misinterpretation of what the data actually represents.

The timing aspect ("as of 2025") also presents potential issues, as some analyses reference budget data that may span multiple fiscal years or use different baseline periods, potentially creating inconsistencies in how "current" federal funding levels are defined and measured across different sources.