2026-02-24 02:36:36
Before households feel inflation at the checkout line, it often starts much earlier in the supply chain. When businesses face rising input costs, those pressures can ripple outward, shaping everything from grocery bills to construction budgets.
Created in partnership with Terzo, this graphic shows where business price hikes have been the most intense. It’s part of our Markets in a Minute series, which delivers quick economic insights for executives.
We’ve used data from the Producer Price Index, which tracks the prices businesses pay for inputs like raw materials, energy, and intermediate goods. The table below shows which commodities had the biggest price hikes in 2025.
| Commodity | Category | Dec. 2024 to Dec. 2025 Price Increase |
|---|---|---|
| Wholesale Turkey | Food & Agriculture | 70% |
| Primary Metals* | Metals | 62% |
| Metal Ores* | Metals | 47% |
| Recycled Metals* | Metals | 31% |
| Aluminum Products | Metals | 31% |
| Aluminum Scrap | Metals | 25% |
| Wholesale Beef | Food & Agriculture | 21% |
| Copper Scrap | Metals | 20% |
| Industrial Gases | Chemical & Industrial | 18% |
| Nitrogen Fertilizers | Chemical & Industrial | 18% |
| Steel Products | Metals | 17% |
| Portfolio Management | Services | 17% |
| Fluid Power Equipment** | Chemical & Industrial | 16% |
| Wire and Cable* | Metals | 15% |
| Inedible Fats & Oils | Food & Agriculture | 14% |
*Excluding iron and steel. **Uses pressurized liquid or gas. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, data as of December 2025.
One standout: turkeys. Businesses saw wholesale prices rise by 70% in the last year, driven by bird flu outbreaks that reduced supply. Businesses using turkey as a core input, such as deli meat producers, frozen meal manufacturers, and pet food companies will be hit particularly hard.
Turkey inflation has also impacted grocers, but companies typically have not passed these prices on to consumers around Thanksgiving. Many retailers treat turkeys as a loss leader, absorbing higher costs to draw shoppers into their stores.
Notably, eight of the top 15 biggest price hikes are related to metals. Aluminum prices have been pushed higher by energy-intensive smelting costs, tariffs that have reduced supply, and high demand for the metal in everything from vehicles to AI data centers.
Copper has also seen high inflation, driven by tight supply just as demand accelerates from electrification, power grids, and renewable energy infrastructure.
Analysts are mixed on what they see coming for copper prices. While Goldman Sachs predicts that copper prices will decline in 2026, J.P. Morgan Global Research expects the rally to continue.
To navigate this complexity, leading businesses are turning to smarter tools. Terzo’s all-in-one AI platform, NirvanAI, helps leaders transform company contracts into clear, actionable insights.
See NirvanAI in action and learn how it helps you make decisions with confidence.
Top CFOs are earnings thousands per hour in compensation. Who’s leading the pack, and how much are they making?
This visualization breaks down the U.S. $13.4 trillion ETF market by asset class, showing how ETFs allocate capital across equities, bonds, and more.
Which country led stock markets in 2025? See the biggest shocks, rebounds, and year-end returns in this global recap.
Which global cities are most at risk of a housing bubble? This new map ranks the world’s most overheated real estate markets.
Want AI your team will trust? Pull back the curtain on the top factors that make people believe in artificial intelligence.
Find out how common AI hallucination is for leading models, and what that means for the businesses that rely on them.
Among the dangers of AI, one stands apart as causing trouble for almost a third of companies. What do leaders need to know?
Which university has had the most alumni become entrepreneurs in the last decade? Hint: its not Stanford or Harvard.
In many advanced economies, the number of retirees is climbing while the working-age population shrinks. What are the countries where workers are supporting the most seniors?
The national unemployment rate for the U.S. rose to 4.3% in August 2025. But that figure masks vast differences in local labor market health across states.
A trade war has threatened economic ties in 2025. Which economies are most exposed to these shifts in international trade?
Tariff rates vary by country, as does the value of goods each nation exports to the U.S. Which countries contribute the most?
As the U.S. labor market cools, which industries are still hiring—and which are cutting back their workforces?
Global debt continues to climb, reaching $150T in Q1 2025. Which countries carry the heaviest burdens?
How do Fed rate cuts in the U.S. compare with the interest rate changes in other G7 countries, and what does it mean for business?
Explore the fastest growing jobs by projected growth rate, plus salary insights, in a rapidly changing job market.
This graphic pieces together the $127T global stock market to reveal which countries and regions dominate—and how much equity they control.
The median age of first-time home buyers has reached a historic high. See just how long it’s taking people to get on the property ladder.
The Silent Generation’s share of real estate has dropped dramatically as people age, but how have Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials fared?
Real estate is the biggest industry by GDP in 26 states. Find out why it dominates—and what fuels the rest of the country.
Tariffs are rising to boost American-made goods. Which states gain the most—and least—from manufacturing today?
Collectively, the ten most profitable U.S. companies have a net income of $684 billion—more than the entire GDP of Belgium.
New York City has the highest millionaire population globally. Which other cities attract the world’s wealthiest?
The global economy is expected to have slighter slower growth going forward. Which countries are on track to have the biggest GDP increases?
The U.S. has kept their target rate the same at 4.25-4.50%. What do interest rates look like in other countries amid economic uncertainty?
The national housing market saw a 4.5% rise in house prices. This graphic reveals which states had high price growth, and which didn’t.
If you held a $1,000 investment from 1975-2024, this chart shows how the inflation rate can drastically reduce the value of your money.
Trump cites trade deficits—the U.S. importing more than it exports—as one reason for tariffs. Which countries represent the largest deficits?
2026-02-24 02:31:08
Cyber intrusions rarely follow a single path once attackers get a foothold. Instead, they pivot across systems to widen impact and deepen damage.
This graphic, in partnership with Unit 42 by Palo Alto Networks, shows where attacks occur in cyber intrusions, based on data from the Unit 42 Global Incident Response Report.
Here is a table that breaks intrusions into nine primary attack surfaces observed across investigations.
| Attack Front | Incidents Percentage |
|---|---|
| Identity | 89% |
| Endpoints | 61% |
| Network | 50% |
| Human | 45% |
| 27% | |
| Application | 26% |
| Cloud | 20% |
| SecOps | 10% |
| Database | 1% |
In Unit 42’s sample, 87% of incidents touched at least two surfaces, and 67% hit three or more. Because the categories overlap, a single case can span multiple layers at once.
Identity appears in 89% of cases, making it the most common surface in the dataset. Meanwhile, endpoints (61%) and networks (50%) remain common launch points for lateral movement.
Email (27%) and applications (26%) sit mid-pack, while cloud services appear in 20% of incidents. Still, even “lower” categories matter when attackers chain small wins into bigger access.
Humans show up in 45% of incidents, often through user-driven activity that enables the next pivot.
Multi-surface activity means point solutions can miss context when attackers hop layers. Teams need shared signals across identity, endpoint, network, app, and cloud to spot chained actions early.
SecOps appears in 10% of cases, so attackers sometimes probe security operations tooling and workflows. As a result, integrated detection and response helps contain movement before it reaches databases, which appear in 1% of incidents.
2026-02-23 23:25:43
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Over the past seven decades, Americans’ trust in the federal government has dropped from postwar highs to historic lows. In 1964, 77% said they trusted Washington to do what is right most of the time. As of September 2025, that figure stands at just 17%.
The chart above tracks this long-term shift, using data from Pew Research Center. While trust has occasionally surged during moments of national crisis, the broader trajectory shows a steady erosion across generations.
Trust peaked in 1964, when 77% of Americans said they trusted the federal government most of the time. Even in 1958, nearly three-quarters of the public expressed confidence in the federal government.
That began to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s. By 1970, trust had fallen to 54%, and it slipped further to 36% by 1974 in the aftermath of Watergate. The Vietnam War, political scandals, and economic turbulence reshaped public opinion for decades to come.
| Date | Trust the government (%) |
|---|---|
| 9/28/2025 | 17 |
| 2/9/2025 | 19 |
| 5/19/2024 | 18 |
| 6/11/2023 | 19 |
| 05/01/2022 | 20 |
| 4/11/2021 | 21 |
| 8/2/2020 | 24 |
| 4/12/2020 | 21 |
| 3/25/2019 | 17 |
| 12/04/2017 | 18 |
| 4/11/2017 | 19 |
| 10/04/2015 | 18 |
| 7/20/2014 | 19 |
| 2/26/2014 | 18 |
| 11/15/2013 | 20 |
| 10/13/2013 | 19 |
| 5/31/2013 | 20 |
| 02/06/2013 | 22 |
| 1/13/2013 | 23 |
| 10/31/2012 | 19 |
| 10/19/2011 | 17 |
| 10/04/2011 | 15 |
| 9/23/2011 | 18 |
| 8/21/2011 | 21 |
| 2/28/2011 | 23 |
| 10/21/2010 | 23 |
| 10/01/2010 | 21 |
| 09/06/2010 | 23 |
| 09/01/2010 | 23 |
| 04/05/2010 | 23 |
| 04/05/2010 | 22 |
| 3/21/2010 | 24 |
| 2/12/2010 | 22 |
| 02/05/2010 | 21 |
| 1/10/2010 | 20 |
| 12/20/2009 | 21 |
| 8/31/2009 | 22 |
| 6/12/2009 | 23 |
| 12/21/2008 | 25 |
| 10/15/2008 | 24 |
| 10/13/2008 | 24 |
| 07/09/2007 | 24 |
| 01/09/2007 | 28 |
| 10/08/2006 | 29 |
| 9/15/2006 | 30 |
| 02/05/2006 | 31 |
| 1/20/2006 | 33 |
| 01/06/2006 | 32 |
| 12/02/2005 | 32 |
| 9/11/2005 | 31 |
| 09/09/2005 | 30 |
| 6/19/2005 | 35 |
| 10/15/2004 | 39 |
| 7/15/2004 | 41 |
| 3/21/2004 | 38 |
| 10/26/2003 | 36 |
| 7/27/2003 | 43 |
| 10/15/2002 | 46 |
| 09/04/2002 | 46 |
| 09/02/2002 | 40 |
| 7/13/2002 | 40 |
| 6/17/2002 | 43 |
| 1/24/2002 | 46 |
| 12/07/2001 | 49 |
| 10/25/2001 | 54 |
| 10/06/2001 | 49 |
| 1/17/2001 | 44 |
| 10/31/2000 | 38 |
| 10/15/2000 | 42 |
| 07/09/2000 | 39 |
| 04/02/2000 | 38 |
| 2/14/2000 | 34 |
| 10/03/1999 | 36 |
| 9/14/1999 | 33 |
| 5/16/1999 | 33 |
| 2/21/1999 | 31 |
| 2/12/1999 | 32 |
| 02/04/1999 | 34 |
| 1/10/1999 | 34 |
| 01/03/1999 | 37 |
| 12/01/1998 | 33 |
| 11/15/1998 | 30 |
| 11/01/1998 | 26 |
| 10/26/1998 | 28 |
| 8/10/1998 | 31 |
| 2/22/1998 | 35 |
| 02/01/1998 | 33 |
| 1/25/1998 | 32 |
| 1/19/1998 | 32 |
| 10/31/1997 | 31 |
| 8/27/1997 | 31 |
| 06/01/1997 | 26 |
| 1/14/1997 | 27 |
| 11/02/1996 | 27 |
| 10/15/1996 | 28 |
| 5/12/1996 | 31 |
| 05/06/1996 | 29 |
| 11/19/1995 | 27 |
| 08/07/1995 | 22 |
| 08/05/1995 | 21 |
| 3/19/1995 | 20 |
| 2/22/1995 | 21 |
| 12/01/1994 | 21 |
| 10/29/1994 | 22 |
| 10/23/1994 | 20 |
| 06/06/1994 | 19 |
| 1/30/1994 | 20 |
| 1/20/1994 | 22 |
| 3/24/1993 | 25 |
| 1/17/1993 | 25 |
| 1/14/1993 | 25 |
| 10/23/1992 | 25 |
| 10/15/1992 | 25 |
| 06/08/1992 | 29 |
| 10/20/1991 | 35 |
| 03/06/1991 | 42 |
| 03/01/1991 | 46 |
| 1/27/1991 | 40 |
| 12/01/1990 | 33 |
| 10/28/1990 | 32 |
| 09/06/1990 | 35 |
| 1/16/1990 | 38 |
| 6/29/1989 | 39 |
| 1/15/1989 | 41 |
| 11/10/1988 | 43 |
| 10/15/1988 | 41 |
| 1/23/1988 | 40 |
| 10/18/1987 | 43 |
| 06/01/1987 | 43 |
| 03/01/1987 | 44 |
| 1/21/1987 | 43 |
| 1/19/1987 | 42 |
| 12/01/1986 | 44 |
| 11/30/1986 | 43 |
| 09/09/1986 | 44 |
| 1/19/1986 | 44 |
| 11/06/1985 | 43 |
| 7/29/1985 | 42 |
| 3/21/1985 | 40 |
| 2/27/1985 | 42 |
| 2/22/1985 | 45 |
| 11/14/1984 | 44 |
| 10/15/1984 | 41 |
| 12/01/1982 | 39 |
| 11/07/1980 | 32 |
| 10/15/1980 | 30 |
| 3/12/1980 | 27 |
| 11/03/1979 | 28 |
| 12/01/1978 | 31 |
| 10/23/1977 | 32 |
| 4/25/1977 | 34 |
| 10/15/1976 | 36 |
| 09/05/1976 | 35 |
| 6/15/1976 | 35 |
| 03/01/1976 | 34 |
| 02/08/1976 | 35 |
| 12/01/1974 | 36 |
| 10/15/1972 | 53 |
| 12/01/1970 | 54 |
| 10/15/1968 | 62 |
| 12/01/1966 | 65 |
| 10/15/1964 | 77 |
| 12/01/1958 | 73 |
Although the long-term trend is downward, trust has occasionally rebounded during moments of national unity. After the 9/11 attacks, trust jumped from 44% to 54% in a matter of months. It was one of the last times a majority expressed confidence in Washington.
Similar, though smaller, increases occurred during other crises. In early 2020, trust briefly rose to 24% amid the COVID-19 outbreak. However, these bumps have proven short-lived, with trust quickly returning to lower levels.
Since the mid-2000s, trust in government has rarely crossed the 30% mark. In the 2010s and early 2020s, it often dipped below 20%.
As of September 2025, just 17% of Americans say they trust the federal government most of the time — near the lowest level recorded in Pew’s time series.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out America’s Growing Mountain of Debt on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2026-02-23 21:06:55
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
California alone employs more than half a million tech workers, nearly twice as many as the next closest state.
This map shows where America’s tech jobs are located in 2025, highlighting how heavily the industry is concentrated in just a handful of states.
Figures are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data via Arizona State University.
Nationwide, tech employment totals roughly 3.2 million workers in 2025.
In the below table, we break down the number of tech jobs in each state, along with its growth rate over the last year.
| Rank | State | Number of Jobs 2025 |
Annual Job Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California | 524K | -2.8% |
| 2 | New York | 286K | 0.0% |
| 3 | Texas | 226K | -2.0% |
| 4 | Washington | 171K | 3.0% |
| 5 | Florida | 161K | 0.5% |
| 6 | Georgia | 112K | -6.7% |
| 7 | Illinois | 98K | 5.7% |
| 8 | Massachusetts | 92K | 0.3% |
| 9 | Pennsylvania | 88K | -2.0% |
| 10 | North Carolina | 85K | -0.9% |
| 11 | Colorado | 77K | 4.6% |
| 12 | New Jersey | 70K | -4.5% |
| 13 | Virginia | 69K | -4.2% |
| 14 | Ohio | 67K | 1.4% |
| 15 | Michigan | 57K | -0.4% |
| 16 | Tennessee | 55K | -0.7% |
| 17 | Wisconsin | 48K | -1.6% |
| 18 | Arizona | 48K | -0.6% |
| 19 | Missouri | 45K | -2.8% |
| 20 | Utah | 44K | 6.3% |
| 21 | Minnesota | 41K | -4.2% |
| 22 | Oregon | 36K | -0.8% |
| 23 | Maryland | 34K | -1.2% |
| 24 | South Carolina | 31K | 4.8% |
| 25 | Connecticut | 30K | -0.7% |
| 26 | Indiana | 26K | -1.1% |
| 27 | Alabama | 23K | 0.4% |
| 28 | Kentucky | 21K | -1.0% |
| 29 | Nevada | 20K | -0.5% |
| 30 | Oklahoma | 18K | 2.3% |
| 31 | Louisiana | 18K | -4.7% |
| 32 | Iowa | 18K | 0.0% |
| 33 | Kansas | 18K | 2.3% |
| 34 | Nebraska | 17K | -2.3% |
| 35 | Arkansas | 12K | -4.1% |
| 36 | New Hampshire | 11K | -0.9% |
| 37 | Mississippi | 10K | -1.0% |
| 38 | Idaho | 9K | 0.0% |
| 39 | New Mexico | 9K | -11.0% |
| 40 | Hawaii | 8K | -2.4% |
| 41 | West Virginia | 8K | -1.3% |
| 42 | Maine | 8K | -4.8% |
| 43 | North Dakota | 5K | 1.9% |
| 44 | Montana | 5K | -5.3% |
| 45 | South Dakota | 5K | 0.0% |
| 46 | Rhode Island | 5K | -7.1% |
| 47 | Vermont | 4K | -6.5% |
| 48 | Alaska | 4K | -4.7% |
| 49 | Delaware | 4K | 0.0% |
| 50 | Wyoming | 3K | -3.3% |
With 524,000 tech workers, California employs 18% of the nation’s tech workforce across over 61,000 firms.
Still, the state shed thousands of tech jobs last year, given economic uncertainty and the spillover effects of AI. Overall, tech jobs contracted 2.8% in 2025.
New York follows, with 286,000 tech workers, equal to one in 10 jobs nationwide. In 2025, tech job growth was effectively flat.
Ranking in third is Texas, with tech employment standing at 226,000. As a growing tech hub, the state has added over 26,000 roles in the sector since 2020. Last year, however, the number of roles contracted by 2%.
In contrast to these heavyweight states, several smaller tech hubs posted strong job growth. Utah’s tech workforce totals just 44,000, yet employment climbed 6.3% in 2025. Illinois, South Carolina, and Colorado—each with fewer than 100,000 tech jobs—saw gains of 5.8%, 4.8%, and 4.6%, respectively.
To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s top 50 science and technology clusters.
2026-02-23 02:43:28
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Belief in the unknown, whether extraterrestrials or legendary creatures, remains surprisingly common in America. The visualization above, created by Julie Peasley using data from YouGov, explores how likely U.S. adults think it is that aliens, Bigfoot, and the chupacabra exist.
Here’s how Americans responded when asked how likely each being exists, according to YouGov:
| Entity | Definitely Exists | Probably Exists | Probably Does Not Exist | Definitely Does Not Exist | Not Sure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aliens | 18% | 38% | 16% | 15% | 14% |
| Bigfoot | 4% | 24% | 27% | 33% | 12% |
| The Yeti | 3% | 20% | 28% | 32% | 17% |
| Chupacabra | 3% | 13% | 29% | 31% | 24% |
| Loch Ness Monster | 3% | 19% | 29% | 35% | 14% |
Aliens clearly stand apart. A majority (56%) say extraterrestrials definitely or probably exist, more than double the share who believe in Bigfoot, and more than triple belief in the chupacabra.
Interest in extraterrestrial life has grown steadily, fueled by government disclosures and increased reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs).
According to YouGov, 56% of Americans say aliens definitely (18%) or probably (38%) exist. That makes extraterrestrials far more plausible in the public mind than either Bigfoot or the chupacabra.
YouGov’s polling also finds that roughly half of Americans believe aliens have visited Earth. In addition, about one-third say UFO sightings are evidence of alien spacecraft, while others attribute them to natural phenomena, secret military technology, or optical illusions.
Demographic differences are notable. Younger Americans are generally more likely to believe in extraterrestrials than older cohorts, and men tend to express higher levels of belief than women.
Taken together, the data suggests that belief in aliens has moved well beyond the fringe. While skepticism remains, the idea that intelligent life exists somewhere beyond Earth is now a mainstream view in the United States.
Globally, belief varies widely. We previously mapped the countries that believe in aliens the most, showing that views differ significantly across regions and cultures.
Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary ape-like creature said to inhabit forests in North America.
While 28% of Americans say Bigfoot probably or definitely exists, a larger share (60%) say it probably or definitely does not. Compared to aliens, belief in Bigfoot is far more polarized, with fewer “not sure” responses.
Despite the skepticism, Bigfoot remains deeply embedded in pop culture, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.
The chupacabra, which translates to “goat sucker” in Spanish, is a cryptid said to attack livestock, particularly in Latin America and the southern United States.
Only 16% of Americans believe it exists, while 60% say it likely or definitely does not. Notably, nearly a quarter (24%) say they are not sure, which is a higher uncertainty than for aliens or Bigfoot. This suggests that while the chupacabra is less widely believed, it remains a mysterious figure in American folklore.
Curious how beliefs in extraterrestrials connect to UFO sightings? Explore One Third of Americans Believe UFO Sightings are Aliens on the Voronoi app for more data-driven insights into what Americans think about life beyond Earth.
2026-02-22 23:35:02
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
In parts of the United States, nearly one in five households struggle to afford enough food.
The latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reveals stark geographic divides in food insecurity across the country. While the national average sits at 13.3%, several states—concentrated largely in the South—report rates far above that level.
This map breaks down where food insecurity is highest by state, highlighting the regional inequalities shaping access to basic necessities in America today.
For the analysis, the USDA surveyed 32,719 households between 2022 and 2024 on their level of food insecurity.
Food insecurity is considered as the lack of consistent access to enough nutritious food, driven by limited financial resources. The table below shows state averages over the period.
| Rank | State | Share of Households | Average Number of Households |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arkansas | 19.4% | 1.3M |
| 2 | Kentucky | 18.8% | 1.8M |
| 3 | Louisiana | 17.7% | 1.9M |
| 4 | Texas | 17.6% | 11.5M |
| 5 | Mississippi | 17.3% | 1.2M |
| 6 | Oklahoma | 16.9% | 1.6M |
| 7 | Wyoming | 15.6% | 0.2M |
| 8 | Nevada | 15.0% | 1.3M |
| 9 | Michigan | 14.7% | 4.2M |
| 10 | Georgia | 14.6% | 4.3M |
| 11 | New Mexico | 14.5% | 0.9M |
| 12 | Ohio | 14.2% | 4.9M |
| 13 | West Virginia | 14.1% | 0.7M |
| 14 | New York | 14.0% | 7.9M |
| 15 | Indiana | 13.7% | 2.8M |
| 16 | South Carolina | 13.5% | 2.3M |
| 17 | Florida | 13.3% | 9.3M |
| 18 | Illinois | 13.3% | 5.1M |
| 19 | Missouri | 13.3% | 2.6M |
| 20 | Tennessee | 13.3% | 3.0M |
| 21 | Arizona | 13.1% | 2.9M |
| 22 | Alaska | 13.0% | 0.3M |
| 23 | Maine | 12.9% | 0.6M |
| 24 | Nebraska | 12.7% | 0.8M |
| 25 | Idaho | 12.6% | 0.8M |
| 26 | California | 12.5% | 14.0M |
| 27 | Kansas | 12.5% | 1.2M |
| 28 | Oregon | 12.5% | 1.7M |
| 29 | Virginia | 12.4% | 3.5M |
| 30 | Alabama | 12.1% | 2.1M |
| 31 | Connecticut | 12.1% | 1.4M |
| 32 | Wisconsin | 12.0% | 2.5M |
| 33 | North Carolina | 11.8% | 4.4M |
| 34 | Massachusetts | 11.7% | 2.8M |
| 35 | Montana | 11.7% | 0.5M |
| 36 | Maryland | 11.5% | 2.3M |
| 37 | Utah | 11.5% | 1.2M |
| 38 | Washington | 11.0% | 3.2M |
| 39 | Pennsylvania | 10.9% | 5.3M |
| 40 | Delaware | 10.8% | 0.4M |
| 41 | Hawaii | 10.8% | 0.5M |
| 42 | Iowa | 10.8% | 1.4M |
| 43 | Rhode Island | 10.6% | 0.4M |
| 44 | Colorado | 10.5% | 2.4M |
| 45 | District of Columbia | 10.3% | 0.3M |
| 46 | Minnesota | 9.9% | 2.3M |
| 47 | New Jersey | 9.8% | 3.6M |
| 48 | South Dakota | 9.5% | 0.4M |
| 49 | Vermont | 9.4% | 0.3M |
| 50 | New Hampshire | 9.1% | 0.6M |
| 51 | North Dakota | 9.0% | 0.3M |
Arkansas reports the highest rate at 19.4%, followed by Kentucky (18.8%), Louisiana (17.7%), Texas (17.6%), and Mississippi (17.3%).
Many of these states also have lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, larger rural populations, and greater reliance on public assistance programs. This overlap suggests food insecurity is closely tied to broader structural economic conditions, rather than short-term fluctuations alone.
By contrast, states like North Dakota (9.0%), New Hampshire (9.1%), and Vermont (9.4%) report rates closer to one in 10 households. The result is a more than 10 percentage-point gap between the highest and lowest states.
While percentages tell one part of the story, population size tells another.
Texas, for example, combines a high food insecurity rate (17.6%) with more than 11 million households, meaning millions of families are affected.
California, with approximately 14 million households, reports a rate of 12.5%, yet still accounts for a substantial share of food-insecure households due to its size.
To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the number of households living in poverty by state.
