State Winners & Losers: Who Gained Most from Emergency Spending?
The explosion of emergency farm programs didn't affect all states equally. Comparing 2017 baseline spending to the 2020 peak reveals which states rode the emergency wave — and which were left behind.
💡 Key Insight
The biggest winner was West Virginia, which saw spending surge 55.7× from $1.2M in 2017 to $65.7M in 2020.
The Biggest Winners (2017 → 2020)
These states saw the largest relative increase in farm subsidy spending from 2017 to 2020, driven primarily by CFAP (COVID relief), MFP (trade war payments), and other emergency programs.
| # | State | 2017 | 2020 | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | West Virginia | $1.2M | $65.7M | 55.7× |
| 2 | Maine | $2.2M | $111.3M | 49.5× |
| 3 | Vermont | $2.2M | $87.9M | 39.5× |
| 4 | New York | $15.0M | $555.0M | 37.0× |
| 5 | New Jersey | $3.4M | $88.9M | 26.5× |
| 6 | Wisconsin | $58.0M | $1.36B | 23.5× |
| 7 | California | $122.1M | $2.68B | 21.9× |
| 8 | Nevada | $3.6M | $75.7M | 21.2× |
| 9 | Utah | $10.2M | $209.7M | 20.6× |
| 10 | Alaska | $5.7M | $115.3M | 20.2× |
The Smallest Gains
Not every state benefited equally from emergency spending. These states saw the smallest relative increases — in some cases because they were already large recipients of traditional programs, and in others because their agricultural sectors didn't qualify for the biggest emergency programs.
| # | State | 2017 | 2020 | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virgin Islands | $1.5M | $606K | 0.4× |
| 2 | Puerto Rico | $203.1M | $135.3M | 0.7× |
| 3 | District of Columbia | $35.6M | $32.7M | 0.9× |
| 4 | Florida | $609.1M | $585.6M | 1.0× |
| 5 | Louisiana | $125.3M | $279.8M | 2.2× |
| 6 | Arkansas | $295.0M | $815.7M | 2.8× |
| 7 | Montana | $268.5M | $815.2M | 3.0× |
| 8 | Georgia | $259.9M | $798.2M | 3.1× |
| 9 | Alabama | $105.0M | $382.5M | 3.6× |
| 10 | South Dakota | $389.2M | $1.65B | 4.2× |
What Drove the Differences?
The biggest winners tend to be states with large commodity crop operations (corn, soybeans, cotton) and livestock producers — exactly the sectors targeted by CFAP and MFP payments. States with more diversified agriculture or specialty crops saw smaller relative gains, even if their absolute subsidies remained substantial.
For state-by-state details, explore our state comparison tool or see the full state rankings.