Defense Spending by State - Fiscal Year 2019
This report documents the results of a state-by-state analysis of Department of Defense personnel and contractual spending during Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. State and local officials may use this information to assess a region’s dependence on defense spending and to target assistance to support more resilient communities and companies.
The supplemental report is an analysis of DoD contract and personnel spending in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
Appendix 1 of the full report contains a listing of major military installations by state and county.
Appendix 2 of the full report contains additional details on the research methodology.
Download Reports:
FY 2019 Individual State Defense Spending Pages
Click on the state or district name below to view data:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Previous Reports
To view a previous FY report, click any of the below:
Contact Us
For inquiries regarding the Defense Spending by State report, use the contact us form link below.
Methodology Change: The FY 2018 and 2019 reports contain one significant change from prior Defense Spending by State reports. The FY 2013 through FY 2017 reports reflected the length of each prime contract in USAspending.gov. Such adjustments were not made for the figures in the FY 2018 and 2019 reports due to data quality concerns (e.g., some contracts appear to have activity long after the end of the period of performance). The analysis continues, however, to adjust prime obligations to reflect the year and place of performance of sub-awards.