Have you ever wondered how many people live in your state?
Check the list of states ranked numerically in the table below.
States listed using 2024 population estimates. Data gathered by United States Census Bureau.
List of States ranked by population estimates from high to low.
(Click here to view/print population list alphabetically by State)
Print List By Population
| California | 39,431,263 |
| Texas | 31,290,831 |
| Florida | 23,372,215 |
| New York | 19,867,248 |
| Pennsylvania | 13,078,751 |
| Illinois | 12,710,158 |
| Ohio | 11,883,304 |
| Georgia | 11,180,878 |
| North Carolina | 11,046,024 |
| Michigan | 10,140,459 |
| New Jersey | 9,500,851 |
| Virginia | 8,811,195 |
| Washington | 7,958,180 |
| Arizona | 7,582,384 |
| Tennessee | 7,227,750 |
| Massachusetts | 7,136,171 |
| Indiana | 6,924,275 |
| Maryland | 6,263,220 |
| Missouri | 6,245,466 |
| Wisconsin | 5,960,975 |
| Colorado | 5,957,493 |
| Minnesota | 5,793,151 |
| South Carolina | 5,478,831 |
| Alabama | 5,157,699 |
| Louisiana | 4,597,740 |
| Kentucky | 4,588,372 |
| Oregon | 4,272,371 |
| Oklahoma | 4,095,393 |
| Connecticut | 3,675,069 |
| Utah | 3,503,613 |
| Nevada | 3,267,467 |
| Iowa | 3,241,488 |
| Arkansas | 3,088,354 |
| Kansas | 2,970,606 |
| Mississippi | 2,943,045 |
| New Mexico | 2,130,256 |
| Nebraska | 2,005,465 |
| Idaho | 2,001,619 |
| West Virginia | 1,769,979 |
| Hawaii | 1,446,146 |
| New Hampshire | 1,409,032 |
| Maine | 1,405,012 |
| Montana | 1,137,233 |
| Rhode Island | 1,112308 |
| Delaware | 1,051,917 |
| South Dakota | 924,669 |
| North Dakota | 796,568 |
| Alaska | 740,133 |
| Vermont | 648,493 |
| Wyoming | 587,618 |
Print List Alphabetically
| Alabama | 5,157,699 |
| Alaska | 740,133 |
| Arizona | 7,582,384 |
| Arkansas | 3,088,354 |
| California | 39,431,263 |
| Colorado | 5,957,493 |
| Connecticut | 3,675,069 |
| Delaware | 1,051,917 |
| Florida | 23,372,215 |
| Georgia | 11,180,878 |
| Hawaii | 1,446,146 |
| Idaho | 2,001,619 |
| Illinois | 12,710,158 |
| Indiana | 6,924,275 |
| Iowa | 3,241,488 |
| Kansas | 2,970,606 |
| Kentucky | 4,588,372 |
| Louisiana | 4,597,740 |
| Maine | 1,405,012 |
| Maryland | 6,263,220 |
| Massachusetts | 7,136,171 |
| Michigan | 10,140,459 |
| Minnesota | 5,793,151 |
| Mississippi | 2,943,045 |
| Missouri | 6,245,466 |
| Montana | 1,137,233 |
| Nebraska | 2,005,465 |
| Nevada | 3,267,467 |
| New Hampshire | 1,409,032 |
| New Jersey | 9,500,851 |
| New Mexico | 2,130,256 |
| New York | 19,867,248 |
| North Carolina | 11,046,024 |
| North Dakota | 796,568 |
| Ohio | 11,883,304 |
| Oklahoma | 4,095,393 |
| Oregon | 4,272,371 |
| Pennsylvania | 13,078,751 |
| Rhode Island | 1,112308 |
| South Carolina | 5,478,831 |
| South Dakota | 924,669 |
| Tennessee | 7,227,750 |
| Texas | 31,290,831 |
| Utah | 3,503,613 |
| Vermont | 648,493 |
| Virginia | 8,811,195 |
| Washington | 7,958,180 |
| West Virginia | 1,769,979 |
| Wisconsin | 5,960,975 |
| Wyoming | 587,618 |
Population Growth Of The 50 States
The history of population growth in the United States is deeply tied to geography, economics, migration trends, and policy decisions. Since the first census in 1790, when the U.S. recorded just under 4 million people, the population has grown dramatically, surpassing 330 million today.
This growth, however, has not been uniform across the 50 states. Instead, it reflects the dynamic and shifting patterns of settlement, industry, climate preference, and opportunity that have defined the American experience over centuries.
In the early years of the republic, population growth concentrated in the Northeast and parts of the South. States like New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were among the most populous due to their ports, fertile lands, and early industrial development.
As the country expanded westward through the Louisiana Purchase and later annexations, population centers began spreading into the Midwest and eventually the West. The Homestead Act of 1862 accelerated this movement, offering land to settlers in areas that would become states like Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas.
The 20th century saw the South and West rise in population prominence. Industrialization and the growth of cities such as Houston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix drew millions from rural areas and from outside the country.
Air conditioning made life in the hotter Sun Belt states more comfortable, encouraging migration. Meanwhile, technological innovations and the decline of manufacturing in the Rust Belt pushed people away from the Northeast and Midwest toward the South and West, where jobs in services, technology, and construction became more plentiful.
Each region’s unique economic base has significantly influenced its population growth. The Northeast, for example, once a manufacturing powerhouse, saw slower growth in the latter half of the 20th century as factories closed or moved overseas.
In contrast, the South benefited from lower labor costs and fewer labor union influences, making it attractive for new industries. The West, particularly California and states like Arizona and Nevada, experienced rapid growth due to booming real estate markets, tourism, and entertainment industries.
Texas, a state with vast land and resources, has consistently ranked among the fastest-growing due to its diversified economy and relatively low cost of living.
Migration patterns, both domestic and international, have played a major role in shaping population trends. California’s growth, especially in the mid-to-late 20th century, was fueled by immigration from Latin America and Asia.
Florida, another fast-growing state, attracted retirees from the Northeast and Midwest as well as immigrants from the Caribbean. States like Illinois and Michigan, on the other hand, began to see slower growth or even population decline as their economic bases eroded and residents moved to more prosperous regions.
Infrastructure and housing availability are also key in understanding differences in growth. States that planned effectively for expansion—building highways, schools, and affordable housing—were better positioned to accommodate new residents.
For instance, Arizona’s Phoenix metropolitan area grew rapidly thanks to expansive suburban developments and relatively lenient zoning laws. Meanwhile, highly urbanized states like New Jersey and Connecticut faced slower growth due to space limitations, higher taxes, and stricter development regulations, which discouraged new construction and population inflows.
Another important factor influencing growth is natural increase—births minus deaths. States with younger populations tend to grow more quickly because they have higher birth rates.
Utah, for example, has consistently had one of the highest birth rates in the nation, contributing to its robust population growth even without major waves of migration. In contrast, states like West Virginia and Maine have older populations and low birth rates, contributing to stagnant or declining numbers.
To illustrate these trends more concretely, consider the case of Texas. In 1950, Texas had just over 7.7 million people. Today, it boasts a population exceeding 30 million.
This explosive growth stems from a combination of factors: a strong job market in technology, oil, and finance; a favorable tax environment; and its attraction for both international immigrants and domestic migrants from states like California.
The expansion of cities like Austin, Dallas, and Houston has made Texas a symbol of 21st-century population growth in America.
California tells another story. Its population boomed throughout the 20th century, growing from around 10 million in 1950 to nearly 40 million today.
However, in recent years, growth has slowed and even reversed in some areas due to high housing costs, traffic congestion, and rising taxes. Many residents, particularly those in the middle class, have begun relocating to neighboring states like Nevada, Arizona, and Texas, where the cost of living is lower and opportunities still abound.
On the other end of the spectrum, states like West Virginia and Illinois have seen troubling population declines. West Virginia’s loss reflects the long-term decline of coal mining and the lack of new economic opportunities.
Illinois, once a manufacturing and transportation hub, has struggled with high taxes and government debt, prompting many residents to seek better conditions in other states. These states underscore the challenges faced by regions that are slow to adapt to economic and demographic change.
Regional climate also affects population growth trends. The warmer climates of the South and West attract people seeking milder winters and more outdoor-oriented lifestyles. This trend is particularly evident among retirees, who often leave colder states like Michigan and New York in favor of Florida or Arizona.
As a result, states in the Northeast and Midwest often experience slower growth compared to the sunny and spacious alternatives in the Sun Belt.
Education and job opportunities likewise shape where people choose to live. States that invest in universities, high-tech industries, and research institutions tend to draw young, educated professionals. Massachusetts and North Carolina offer two examples.
Massachusetts, with its top-tier universities and biomedical industries, has managed to retain population despite high living costs. North Carolina, meanwhile, has seen steady growth due to its combination of affordable housing, pleasant climate, and the rise of the Research Triangle area.
Urbanization is yet another lens through which to view growth. Metropolitan areas have long attracted residents due to their job markets, cultural amenities, and infrastructure. However, the recent COVID-19 pandemic shifted the equation somewhat, as remote work enabled people to live farther from urban centers.
As a result, some rural and suburban counties saw unexpected growth during and after the pandemic, particularly in states like Idaho and Montana, which had previously grown more slowly.
Despite these regional differences, the U.S. continues to grow overall, though the pace has slowed in recent years. Fertility rates have declined nationwide, and immigration patterns have shifted due to changes in federal policy and global conditions.
States that were once magnets for newcomers, like New York and California, are seeing more people leave than arrive. Meanwhile, fast-growing states such as Florida and Texas now account for a larger share of national growth.
Looking ahead, the future of U.S. population growth will depend heavily on how states respond to housing shortages, climate change, immigration policy, and economic transformation. Some states will continue to lead in growth by adapting to the needs of new residents and investing in sustainable development.
Others may struggle if they fail to modernize or create appealing environments for families and workers. Regional differences in climate, economy, and infrastructure will likely persist, continuing to shape the demographic map of America.
In summary, population growth in the United States is a story of contrasts—between booming Sun Belt cities and shrinking Rust Belt towns, between coastal metropolises and inland suburbs, between states that prepare for the future and those that cling to the past.
The growth patterns reflect broader forces of economics, policy, and individual choice, weaving a complex demographic tapestry that continues to evolve with each passing decade.
Understanding these regional differences offers insight into not only where Americans live but why they live there—and what that means for the country’s future.