AI infrastructure depends on far more than chips and electricity. It also relies on a range of critical materials, including gallium, rare earths, and tantalum, that are essential to semiconductors, magnets, and power-management systems.

These three materials are highlighted in Figure 2.3 of the World Bank’s World Development Report 2026 because their production is concentrated in a relatively small number of countries.

The figures here are 2025 estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026, using processed production for gallium and mine production for rare earths and tantalum.

Gallium: China’s 99% Share

Here is the World Bank’s breakdown of estimated processed gallium production:

Country/Economy	Share of World Production (%)
China	99.0
Other countries	1.0

China accounts for 99% of the total. However, that does not mean China holds 99% of the world’s gallium underground. Gallium is generally recovered as a byproduct of processing bauxite for aluminum, and China’s enormous aluminum industry has helped it develop gallium extraction at scale. Earlier oversupply and low prices also contributed to producers elsewhere exiting the market.

Gallium matters because compounds such as gallium nitride (GaN) can operate efficiently at high voltages and temperatures. These properties make gallium useful in high-performance semiconductors and power electronics, an increasingly important consideration as AI data centers require more computing power and electricity.

Rare Earths: More Than One Element

Country/Economy	Share of World Production (%)
China	69.2
United States	13.1
Australia	7.4
Myanmar	5.6
Thailand	1.2
India	0.7
Other	2.6

China produces 69.2% of the total, followed by the United States at 13.1% and Australia at 7.4%.

Despite the name, “rare earths” are actually a group of 17 elements. Different members serve different roles across computing hardware. Neodymium and praseodymium, for example, are used in powerful permanent magnets found in hard drives and other equipment, while other rare earths have applications in semiconductors, displays, optics, and data storage.

Tantalum: Power Management for AI Servers

Tantalum production has a very different geographic footprint:

Country/Economy	Share of World Production (%)
Congo, Dem. Rep.	52.0
Rwanda	16.0
Nigeria	15.6
Brazil	7.6
China	3.2
Australia	2.0
Ethiopia	1.6
Russian Federation	1.2
Other	0.8

The Democratic Republic of the Congo supplies 52% of estimated mine production, while Rwanda and Nigeria contribute 16% and 15.6%, respectively. Together, those three countries account for 83.6%.

Tantalum’s AI connection is largely about capacitors. Polymer tantalum capacitors can provide high capacitance in a compact package along with stable electrical performance, making them useful in demanding power systems. Industry reporting in 2026 points to AI servers as a growing source of tantalum capacitor demand.

When Mineral Supply Becomes a Strategic Bottleneck

Production concentration does not automatically translate into an AI advantage. Advanced chips, fabrication capacity, energy infrastructure, and capital all matter. However, when one or a handful of countries dominate production of a critical material, export restrictions or other supply disruptions can ripple through global technology supply chains.

That risk is already visible. China has introduced export controls on gallium-related items and selected medium and heavy rare-earth items in recent years. Those measures have encouraged governments and companies elsewhere to pursue alternative suppliers and new production capacity. In Central Africa, concentrated tantalum production presents a different set of challenges, including potential supply disruptions and responsible sourcing concerns.

As AI infrastructure expands, securing the minerals behind chips, servers, and power systems could become increasingly important alongside securing the chips themselves.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To see where the U.S. is most dependent on foreign mineral supplies, see Ranked: U.S. Import Reliance for 37 Critical Minerals on the Voronoi app.

Artificial intelligence is becoming capable of performing tasks across a growing range of white-collar and technical occupations.

This visualization maps all 50 states and Washington, D.C., by the share of workers employed in occupations considered highly exposed to AI-related disruption. It also highlights the states with the largest and smallest numbers of workers in these roles.

The data for this visualization comes from SmartAsset, using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data and research from the Virginia Economic Information and Analytics Division. The analysis covers 26 occupations identified as having particularly high exposure to potential AI-related disruption.

AI exposure does not necessarily mean these jobs will disappear. Instead, it reflects how susceptible their tasks may be to changes such as automation, weaker hiring demand, wage pressure, or restructuring as AI tools become more capable.

Why Washington Tops the Map

Washington ranks first, with 5.7% of its workforce employed in highly AI-exposed occupations.

The state’s large technology sector helps explain its position, with companies such as Microsoft and Amazon supporting a significant concentration of software developers, programmers, database specialists, and other digital roles.

Rank	State or District	AI-Exposed Jobs (%)
1	Washington	5.7%
2	Virginia	4.6%
3	District of Columbia	4.5%
4	California	4.0%
5	Utah	4.0%
6	Maryland	3.9%
7	Colorado	3.7%
8	New Hampshire	3.7%
9	Texas	3.6%
10	North Carolina	3.5%
11	South Dakota	3.5%
12	Oregon	3.4%
13	New Jersey	3.4%
14	Massachusetts	3.2%
15	Minnesota	3.2%
16	Georgia	3.2%
17	Arizona	3.1%
18	New York	3.1%
19	Tennessee	3.1%
20	Nebraska	3.1%
21	Florida	3.0%
22	Connecticut	2.9%
23	Michigan	2.9%
24	Missouri	2.8%
25	Illinois	2.8%
26	Wisconsin	2.8%
27	Rhode Island	2.8%
28	West Virginia	2.7%
29	Kansas	2.7%
30	Pennsylvania	2.7%
31	Iowa	2.7%
32	Delaware	2.7%
33	Vermont	2.7%
34	Ohio	2.6%
35	Alabama	2.6%
36	Maine	2.5%
37	Idaho	2.5%
38	Montana	2.5%
39	Nevada	2.5%
40	Alaska	2.4%
41	South Carolina	2.4%
42	North Dakota	2.3%
43	Kentucky	2.3%
44	Oklahoma	2.3%
45	Louisiana	2.3%
46	Indiana	2.2%
47	Arkansas	2.2%
48	Wyoming	2.2%
49	New Mexico	2.1%
50	Hawaii	2.1%
51	Mississippi	1.9%

Virginia follows at 4.6%, reflecting its mix of technology firms, federal contractors, and knowledge-based employment. Washington, D.C., ranks third at 4.5%, while California and Utah round out the top five at 4.0% each.

At the other end of the ranking, Mississippi has the lowest share in the study, at 1.9%.

California Has the Most AI-Exposed Jobs

California has the largest absolute number of workers in highly exposed occupations, with approximately 724,000 positions.

Texas follows with about 500,000, while New York and Florida each have roughly 301,000.

Rank	State	States With the Most AI-Exposed Jobs
1	California	724K
2	Texas	500K
3	New York	301K
4	Florida	301K
5	Washington	202K

At the other end of the scale, Wyoming has just 6,000 AI-exposed positions, followed by Alaska and Vermont at about 8,000 each.

Rank	State	States With the Fewest AI-Exposed Jobs
1	Wyoming	6K
2	Alaska	8K
3	Vermont	8K
4	North Dakota	10K
5	Montana	13K

What Types of Jobs Are Most Exposed to AI?

The 26 occupations span technology, communications, administration, finance, and other knowledge-based fields.

Mathematicians rank as the most exposed occupation, followed by proofreaders, correspondence clerks, court reporters, and media and communication workers. Computer programmers, database administrators, web developers, software developers, writers, translators, payroll clerks, and bookkeeping workers also appear on the list.

Many of these roles involve processing information, generating or reviewing text, working with structured data, or performing routine digital tasks, all areas where generative AI and other automation tools have advanced quickly.

Still, exposure should be interpreted as the potential for jobs to change rather than a direct estimate of how many positions will ultimately be eliminated.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the smartest AI models in 2026.

Tax revenue varies dramatically around the world, reflecting differences in tax systems, economic development, and other sources of government income.

Using the latest data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this graphic compares tax revenue as a share of GDP across countries in 2024.

Compare your country with its peers in the final table on this page.

Where Governments Rely Most on Taxes

Among wealthy economies, the differences are substantial. Denmark collects tax revenue equal to 45.3% of GDP, versus roughly 29% in Canada and Australia and just 19.5% in the United States.

Rank	Country	Tax Revenue as % of GDP (2024)
1	Denmark	45.3%
2	Bulgaria	38.8%
3	Sweden	38.7%
4	Namibia	35.3%
5	Iceland	33.4%
6	New Zealand	32.6%
7	Norway	31.3%
8	Eswatini	30.7%
9	Luxembourg	30.7%
10	Finland	30.4%
11	Italy	29.6%
12	Belgium	29.6%
13	Canada	29.5%
14	Australia	29.4%
15	Montenegro	29.0%
16	France	28.7%
17	UK	28.5%
18	Austria	28.3%
19	Greece	27.8%
20	Barbados	27.8%

These differences partly reflect how countries structure their tax systems and fund public services.

Nordic countries generally have broad tax bases that help finance extensive public programs, while the U.S. relies more heavily on private spending in areas such as healthcare and retirement.

The World’s Least Taxed Countries

At the other end of the ranking, oil-rich economies sit alongside some of the world’s poorest countries. Both collect relatively little in taxes, but for very different reasons.

Rank	Country	Tax Revenue as a % of GDP (2024)
1	Libya	1.2%
2	Kuwait	1.4%
3	Iraq	1.7%
4	Yemen	2.0%
5	Sudan	2.0%
6	Somalia	2.2%
7	Nigeria	3.4%
8	Qatar	3.8%
9	Bahrain	4.4%
10	Oman	4.5%
11	South Sudan	4.8%
12	Haiti	5.0%
13	Iran	5.2%
14	Equatorial Guinea	5.5%
15	Angola	5.6%
16	Myanmar	5.6%
17	Brunei	6.1%
18	Ethiopia	6.2%
19	Sierra Leone	6.4%
20	Panama	6.7%

For major oil producers, natural resources provide an alternative source of government revenue. Kuwait collects just 1.4% of GDP in taxes, while Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman are all below 5%.

In lower-income countries, low tax collections can instead reflect large informal economies and limited tax-collection capacity. Similar tax levels can therefore result from resource wealth in one country and difficulty raising revenue in another.

America’s Growing Tax and Spending Gap

The U.S. occupies an interesting position in the global comparison. Its tax take is lower than that of many other advanced economies, while federal spending is projected to remain substantially higher than federal revenues.

In 2026, federal spending is projected at 23.3% of GDP, versus revenues of 17.5%. By 2036, those figures are projected to reach 24.4% and 17.8%, respectively. Meanwhile, net interest is projected to more than double to $2.1 trillion, nearly matching all federal discretionary spending.

This leaves a persistent gap between what the federal government collects and what it spends, while a growing share of the budget goes toward servicing past borrowing.

Tax Revenue Around the World

Countries’ tax revenues vary based on development levels, institutional capacity, tax systems, and resource wealth. The table below lists countries worldwide by tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2024.

Country	Tax Revenue as % of GDP (2024)
Afghanistan	10.9%
Albania	19.8%
Algeria	9.4%
Andorra	15.8%
Angola	5.6%
Antigua and Barbuda	15.6%
Argentina	22.8%
Armenia	22.4%
Aruba	21.0%
Australia	29.4%
Austria	28.3%
Azerbaijan	17.8%
Bahrain	4.4%
Bangladesh	7.4%
Barbados	27.8%
Belarus	27.2%
Belgium	29.6%
Belize	23.2%
Benin	13.2%
Bhutan	10.8%
Bolivia	17.8%
Bosnia and Herzegovina	22.6%
Botswana	22.4%
Brazil	25.6%
Brunei Darussalam	6.1%
Bulgaria	38.8%
Burkina Faso	18.8%
Burundi	12.1%
Cabo Verde	19.4%
Cambodia	12.5%
Cameroon	12.7%
Canada	29.5%
Central African Republic	7.8%
Chad	7.4%
Chile	19.6%
China	13.0%
Colombia	23.0%
Comoros	8.9%
Costa Rica	13.2%
Cote d'Ivoire	13.6%
Croatia	27.2%
Cyprus	25.3%
Czech Republic	18.9%
DR Congo	9.8%
Denmark	45.3%
Djibouti	11.0%
Dominica	22.3%
Dominican Republic	14.5%
Ecuador	13.6%
Egypt	11.7%
El Salvador	21.6%
Equatorial Guinea	5.5%
Estonia	22.9%
Eswatini	30.7%
Ethiopia	6.2%
Fiji	22.3%
Finland	30.4%
France	28.7%
Gabon	13.3%
Georgia	24.9%
Germany	23.0%
Ghana	13.3%
Greece	27.8%
Grenada	23.6%
Guatemala	11.8%
Guinea	12.3%
Guinea-Bissau	8.8%
Guyana	8.2%
Haiti	5.0%
Honduras	17.5%
Hong Kong SAR	14.2%
Hungary	24.7%
Iceland	33.4%
India	18.1%
Indonesia	10.1%
Iran	5.2%
Iraq	1.7%
Ireland	20.5%
Israel	24.9%
Italy	29.6%
Jamaica	25.6%
Japan	20.2%
Jordan	15.4%
Kazakhstan	16.0%
Kenya	12.9%
Kiribati	17.5%
Korea	13.2%
Kosovo	27.1%
Kuwait	1.4%
Kyrgyz Republic	21.8%
Lao P.D.R	12.4%
Latvia	22.8%
Lebanon	10.3%
Lesotho	23.5%
Liberia	11.6%
Libya	1.2%
Liechenstein	14.5%
Lithuania	22.3%
Luxembourg	30.7%
Macao SAR	25.9%
Madagascar	11.4%
Malawi	14.1%
Malaysia	12.5%
Maldives	24.3%
Mali	15.8%
Malta	23.1%
Marshall Islands	13.9%
Mauritania	15.3%
Mauritius	23.1%
Mexico	15.7%
Micronesia	16.5%
Moldova	21.2%
Mongolia	23.9%
Montenegro	29.0%
Morocco	20.8%
Mozambique	20.3%
Myanmar	5.6%
Namibia	35.3%
Nauru	19.4%
Nepal	16.4%
Netherlands	26.5%
New Zealand	32.6%
Nicaragua	20.9%
Niger	6.9%
Nigeria	3.4%
North Macedonia	18.9%
Norway	31.3%
Oman	4.5%
Pakistan	9.9%
Palau	21.7%
Panama	6.7%
Papua New Guinea	12.1%
Paraguay	11.4%
Peru	14.3%
Philippines	15.4%
Poland	22.2%
Portugal	24.9%
Qatar	3.8%
Republic of Congo	10.6%
Romania	16.4%
Russia	19.2%
Rwanda	13.8%
Samoa	24.1%
San Marino	17.6%
Sao Tome and Principe	10.8%
Saudi Arabia	7.2%
Senegal	18.2%
Serbia	23.5%
Seychelles	27.4%
Sierra Leone	6.4%
Singapore	14.3%
Slovak Republic	19.6%
Slovenia	21.5%
Solomon Islands	21.4%
Somalia	2.2%
South Africa	25.2%
South Sudan	4.8%
Spain	23.9%
Sri Lanka	12.4%
St. Kitts and Nevis	15.2%
St. Lucia	19.7%
St. Vincent and the Grenadines	23.6%
Sudan	2.0%
Suriname	18.9%
Sweden	38.7%
Switzerland	20.0%
Tajikistan	17.1%
Tanzania	11.9%
Thailand	16.0%
The Bahamas	17.3%
The Gambia	11.1%
Timor-Leste	9.1%
Togo	14.9%
Tonga	22.0%
Trinidad and Tobago	21.9%
Tunisia	25.3%
Turkmenistan	11.9%
Tuvalu	17.0%
Türkiye	16.6%
UAE	18.2%
Uganda	12.9%
Ukraine	27.4%
United Kingdom	28.5%
United States	19.5%
Uruguay	18.2%
Uzbekistan	13.6%
Vanuatu	13.9%
Vietnam	13.0%
West Bank and Gaza	25.6%
Yemen	2.0%
Zambia	17.3%
Zimbabwe	11.6%

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic breaking down income tax revenue by wealth bracket in America.

China and the European Union are two of America’s biggest trading partners, but their influence looks very different from state to state.

This U.S. map highlights which states trade more with China versus the European Union, using 2025 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Only goods trade is included; trade in services is excluded.

A Trade War on Two Fronts

Within months of the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the U.S. announced sweeping tariffs on dozens of economies, including major trading partners such as China and the EU.

The U.S. initially announced a 34% reciprocal tariff on Chinese goods in April 2025, which was later raised above 100% amid retaliatory measures before being reduced. Against that backdrop, U.S.-China trade fell 29% from the previous year.

The table below lists U.S. states based on whether they traded more with China or the EU in 2025.

State	Trades More With (2025)	EU-to-China Ratio
Alabama	EU	2.6
Alaska	EU	1.6
Arizona	EU	3.0
Arkansas	EU	3.1
California	China	0.8
Colorado	EU	2.5
Connecticut	EU	6.0
Delaware	EU	3.2
D.C.	EU	27.2
Florida	EU	3.6
Georgia	EU	2.6
Hawaii	EU	1.5
Idaho	EU	2.1
Illinois	EU	1.6
Indiana	EU	8.6
Iowa	EU	2.4
Kansas	EU	2.8
Kentucky	EU	4.3
Louisiana	EU	7.7
Maine	EU	5.1
Maryland	EU	7.0
Massachusetts	EU	3.9
Michigan	EU	1.9
Minnesota	EU	1.2
Mississippi	EU	2.0
Missouri	EU	1.6
Montana	EU	4.0
Nebraska	EU	1.7
Nevada	China	0.7
New Hampshire	EU	8.2
New Jersey	EU	4.1
New Mexico	China	0.3
New York	EU	3.3
North Carolina	EU	5.0
North Dakota	EU	3.3
Ohio	EU	2.4
Oklahoma	EU	1.2
Oregon	EU	1.1
Pennsylvania	EU	4.4
Rhode Island	EU	10.2
South Carolina	EU	2.9
South Dakota	China	0.9
Tennessee	EU	2.2
Texas	EU	2.7
Utah	EU	1.4
Vermont	EU	3.0
Virginia	EU	2.7
Washington	China	0.7
West Virginia	EU	3.4
Wisconsin	EU	2.2
Wyoming	EU	1.8

Four states shifted to trading more with the EU than China in 2025: Alaska, Illinois, Oregon, and Wyoming. They joined 41 other states and Washington, D.C., in the EU-oriented group.

With Illinois switching sides, every state east of the Mississippi River now trades more with the EU than with China.

How EU Trade Gained Ground

The EU was also subject to the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, initially facing a 20% reciprocal tariff. Following negotiations between the U.S. and European Commission, the two sides announced a trade deal in July 2025 that capped most U.S. tariffs on EU goods at 15%.

Over the full year, U.S.-China goods trade declined by more than a quarter, while total EU-U.S. trade increased from 2024.

The states trading the most with the EU were Texas ($114 billion), Indiana ($110 billion), and California ($67 billion). Indiana stands out in particular, with the EU accounting for about half of its goods trade, supported by the state’s large pharmaceutical industry and companies such as Eli Lilly.

The Five States Still Oriented Toward China

Only California, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington traded more with China than with the European Union in 2025.

California led by a wide margin, recording more than $86 billion in two-way goods trade with China.

The five states have distinct industries that help explain their trade ties with China. These include California’s port-driven electronics imports, aerospace exports from Washington, and semiconductor production in New Mexico.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To see how transatlantic trade ties are expanding, check out Revitalized U.S. Role in EU Trade since the Mid-2010s on Voronoi.

Artificial intelligence isn’t just creating some of America’s most valuable startups. It’s also creating a new generation of billionaires.

The 2026 Forbes 400 includes founders and executives behind Anthropic, OpenAI, Surge AI, and Cognition among its youngest members, highlighting how quickly AI wealth has risen into the upper ranks of America’s richest people.

This visualization ranks the 10 youngest members of the Forbes 400 by age and shows the companies behind their fortunes.

Net worth figures are as of Sept. 4, 2026, and a fortune of at least $4.4 billion was required to make this year’s Forbes 400.

How AI Is Reshaping America’s Youngest Billionaires

The youngest person in the group is 30-year-old Steven Hao, cofounder of AI coding company Cognition, with an estimated fortune of $5.8 billion.

At the other end of the ranking, several billionaires are 39 years old, including Walmart heir Lukas Walton and Anthropic cofounders Daniela Amodei and Tom Brown.

Name	Age	Net Worth (Billions)	Source of Wealth:
Steven Hao	30	$5.8B	Cognition
Palmer Luckey	33	$5.9B	Anduril
Sam McCandlish	36	$15.5B	Anthropic
Jack Clark	37	$15.5B	Anthropic
Greg Brockman	38	$25.5B	OpenAI
Edwin Chen	38	$18.0B	Surge AI
Daniela Amodei	39	$15.5B	Anthropic
Tom Brown	39	$15.5B	Anthropic
Vlad Tenev	39	$7.1B	Robinhood
Lukas Walton	39	$44.4B	Walmart

Seven names on the list made their fortunes in AI. The remaining fortunes come from Walmart, fintech company Robinhood, and defense technology company Anduril.

Four Anthropic Cofounders Are Worth $15.5 Billion Each

Anthropic accounts for four of the 10 youngest billionaires: Sam McCandlish, Jack Clark, Daniela Amodei, and Tom Brown.

Forbes estimates that each holds a stake worth $15.5 billion, putting their combined fortunes at roughly $62 billion. The four range in age from 36 to 39.

Other AI fortunes include OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman, whose estimated net worth stands at $25.5 billion, Surge AI founder Edwin Chen at $18 billion, and Cognition cofounder Steven Hao at $5.8 billion.

Most of These Fortunes Are Tied to Private Companies

Another defining feature of the ranking is how much of the wealth comes from private companies. Eight of the 10 fortunes are based on private-company stakes valued using recent funding rounds, according to the source note accompanying the Forbes data.

Unlike public stocks, private companies don’t have continuously traded market prices. New funding rounds can reset company valuations and significantly change the estimated paper wealth of major shareholders.

That dynamic is especially important for privately held AI companies, where rising valuations have created multibillion-dollar fortunes well before many of these businesses have reached the public markets.

The Only Heir Is Also the Richest

For all the new wealth being created in technology, the richest person in the ranking represents a much older source of billionaire wealth.

Name	Source of Wealth:	Self-made or inherited
Steven Hao	Cognition	Self-made
Palmer Luckey	Anduril	Self-made
Sam McCandlish	Anthropic	Self-made
Jack Clark	Anthropic	Self-made
Greg Brockman	OpenAI	Self-made
Edwin Chen	Surge AI	Self-made
Daniela Amodei	Anthropic	Self-made
Tom Brown	Anthropic	Self-made
Vlad Tenev	Robinhood	Self-made
Lukas Walton	Walmart	Inherited

At 39, Lukas Walton has an estimated net worth of $44.4 billion stemming from retail giant Walmart. He is the only person among the 10 whose fortune is identified as inherited.

His fortune also stands above every individual AI billionaire shown.

The ranking captures two very different paths to extreme wealth within the same generation: a decades-old retail fortune at the top and a wave of newer fortunes built around some of the world’s fastest-growing technology companies.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Richest Person Every Year Since 1987 on Voronoi, the app from Visual Capitalist.

How U.S.-China Trade Shifted Across the States

U.S. goods trade with China fell 29% in 2025, from $583.6 billion to $414.6 billion, amid a year of sharply higher tariffs and shifting trade flows.

This map shows the change in each state’s goods trade with China from 2024 to 2025, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Trade is the sum of a state’s exports to and imports from mainland China, in current U.S. dollars. Exports are credited to the state where a shipment begins its journey to the port, which is not always where the goods were produced.

Trade With China Fell in 49 of 50 States

The size of the decline varied widely, from 7.6% in North Carolina to 64.3% in Louisiana. Overall, 22 states lost at least a quarter of their goods trade value with China.

The table below ranks all 50 states by the percentage change in their goods trade with China from 2024 to 2025, along with each year’s trade value:

State	2024 (Goods traded, $B)	2025 (Goods traded, $B)	Change (%)
New Mexico	3.9	4.9	27.2
North Carolina	13.0	12.0	-7.6
Indiana	14.3	12.7	-11.2
Rhode Island	0.7	0.6	-12.1
Utah	3.8	3.3	-13.0
Oklahoma	2.8	2.5	-13.0
South Dakota	0.4	0.3	-13.3
New Hampshire	0.9	0.8	-14.7
Minnesota	8.7	7.4	-14.7
Idaho	0.5	0.4	-15.2
Kentucky	11.0	9.3	-15.6
Iowa	2.2	1.9	-15.9
Ohio	13.2	11.1	-16.1
Michigan	11.0	9.1	-17.1
Missouri	4.9	4.0	-18.5
Oregon	8.5	6.9	-19.0
Arkansas	1.3	1.0	-19.3
North Dakota	0.2	0.2	-19.4
Mississippi	3.6	2.8	-20.4
Delaware	1.2	1.0	-21.1
Wisconsin	7.9	6.2	-21.2
Maine	0.3	0.2	-22.0
West Virginia	0.6	0.5	-22.3
Florida	14.3	11.0	-22.7
Colorado	2.6	2.0	-23.4
Nevada	5.8	4.4	-23.6
Vermont	0.3	0.2	-23.9
Georgia	21.0	15.9	-24.2
New Jersey	16.4	12.3	-25.3
Massachusetts	7.3	5.4	-25.4
South Carolina	12.6	9.4	-25.5
Virginia	7.1	5.2	-26.3
Connecticut	2.8	2.1	-26.5
Texas	58.7	42.5	-27.6
New York	21.6	15.6	-27.6
Kansas	2.3	1.7	-28.0
Washington	23.1	16.5	-28.6
Nebraska	1.4	1.0	-29.0
Hawaii	0.3	0.2	-29.1
Maryland	3.8	2.7	-29.5
Tennessee	24.4	15.6	-36.1
Montana	0.2	0.1	-36.5
Pennsylvania	20.0	12.6	-36.8
California	138.5	86.3	-37.7
Arizona	7.1	4.4	-37.9
Alabama	8.2	4.9	-41.1
Illinois	46.7	26.3	-43.7
Alaska	1.6	0.9	-46.4
Wyoming	0.3	0.1	-57.5
Louisiana	11.2	4.0	-64.3
U.S. Total	583.6	414.6	-29.0

Figures may not sum due to rounding.

Most of the lost dollars came from imports. Nationally, imports from China fell by $132 billion, compared with a $37 billion decline in exports, meaning nearly four-fifths of the decrease in trade value came from lower imports. California and Illinois alone accounted for about half of that import decline.

The steepest percentage drops tell a different story. In Louisiana, Wyoming, and Alaska, the three biggest decliners, trade fell mainly because exports to China dropped.

New Mexico was the lone exception, driven by a surge in electronics exports.

Why New Mexico Went the Other Way

New Mexico’s trade with China rose 27% to $4.9 billion, and a single category explains the gain: exports of electrical machinery and electronics, which include computer chips, climbed 69% to $3.0 billion.

That trade barely existed a few years ago. New Mexico shipped only about $20 million of these goods to China annually in 2022 and 2023, before exports jumped to $1.8 billion in 2024. That same year, Intel opened Fab 9, an advanced chip-packaging plant in Rio Rancho.

The growth also held up through the tariff war. China reportedly exempted some U.S.-made chips from its 125% tariff in April 2025, although it did not publicly confirm the move.

China accounted for 18% of New Mexico’s goods trade in 2025, making it the most China-reliant state.

Louisiana’s Soybean and Fuel Exports to China Collapsed

At the other end of the map, Louisiana lost $7.2 billion in trade with China, and almost all of it came from exports, which fell 71%. Soybean shipments dropped from $5.9 billion to $2.1 billion, while fuel exports fell from $3.2 billion to $0.3 billion.

Both were among the first targets of China’s retaliation. Beijing added tariffs on U.S. coal, LNG, and crude oil in February 2025 and on soybeans in March, before raising its tariff on all U.S. goods to 125% in April. The U.S. shipped virtually no soybeans to China from June through August, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Much of that loss belongs to farmers upriver. Grain from across the Midwest moves down the Mississippi River to export terminals near New Orleans, and Census credits it to Louisiana, where the shipments are consolidated. Louisiana itself harvested 55 million bushels of soybeans in 2024, a fraction of the 474 million bushels it was credited with shipping to China.

As the Census Bureau notes, this methodology can overstate exports from port states and understate them from the states where the goods were produced, meaning the map may understate how hard the trade downturn hit parts of the Farm Belt.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To learn more about how tariffs affected the U.S.-China trade relationship, check out this graphic on Voronoi.

Over the past 15 years, the balance of global equity market value has shifted substantially as some markets expanded much faster than others.

This visualization tracks equity market capitalization from 2011 to 2025, using World Federation of Exchanges figures published in SIFMA’s Capital Markets Fact Book.

Market capitalization measures the value of outstanding shares at prevailing prices; all figures are expressed in nominal U.S. dollars and are not adjusted for inflation.

The Changing Leaderboard of Equity Markets

The U.S. has pulled comfortably ahead, expanding from $15.6 trillion in 2011 to $68.9 trillion of market capitalization in 2025. Its share of the global total grew from less than a third to roughly 44%.

Below the leader, the order shifted. China’s equity market surpassed Japan’s in 2014 amid a surge in stock buying, while India overtook Japan in 2021. By 2025, China and the European Union were level at approximately $15.5 trillion each.

The table below lists the world’s largest equity markets in both 2011 and 2025.

Equity Market	Market capitalization ($T)
	2011	2025
U.S.	15.6	68.9
China	3.4	15.5
European Union	6.0	15.5
India	2.0	10.6
Japan	3.5	7.6
Hong Kong	2.3	6.1
United Kingdom	3.3	5.6
Canada	1.9	4.6
Australia	1.2	2.0
Other developed markets	4.4	14.4
Other emerging markets	6.0	6.9
Global total	49.6	157.8

The trend of a rising U.S. share of global equity markets reversed in 2025. While U.S. market capitalization continued to grow, its share of the global total fell from roughly 47% in 2024 to 44% in 2025 as markets elsewhere grew faster.

The U.S. nevertheless remains home to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, the world’s two largest stock exchanges.

How Tech Giants Expanded America’s Lead

The rise of large technology companies helps explain the U.S. market’s growing weight. Businesses built around software, digital advertising, and cloud computing can serve customers worldwide, allowing their revenue to expand far beyond the U.S. economy.

More recently, artificial intelligence has added another source of investor enthusiasm. Advances in AI and subsequent investor interest have boosted valuations for a subset of technology firms. Expectations of future profits can lift share prices well before those profits arrive, with substantial effects on the broader market.

Specifically, the so-called Magnificent Seven stocks have accounted for most of the S&P 500’s total return in both 2024 and 2025. This group consists of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Tesla.

The Gap Between Market Size and Economic Size

A stock market measures the value investors place on listed businesses rather than everything an economy produces. Private companies are absent, while listed multinationals can earn substantial revenue abroad.

China’s mid-2010s boom shows how financial conditions can reshape valuations. Heavy buying with borrowed money helped fuel the 2015 rally before prices reversed sharply that summer. Borrowing can amplify purchasing power on the way up and increase pressure to sell when prices fall.

The following table shows how the market capitalization of leading equity markets changed between 2011 and 2025.

Year	Equity Market Cap ($T)
	Australia	Canada	China	EU	India	Japan	UK	U.S.
2011	1.2	1.9	3.4	6.0	2.0	3.5	3.3	15.6
2012	1.4	2.1	3.7	6.9	2.5	3.7	3.4	18.7
2013	1.4	2.1	3.9	8.6	2.3	4.5	4.4	24.0
2014	1.3	2.1	6.0	7.9	3.1	4.4	4.0	26.3
2015	1.2	1.6	8.2	7.6	3.0	4.9	3.9	25.1
2016	1.3	2.0	7.3	7.7	3.1	5.1	3.5	27.4
2017	1.5	2.4	8.7	9.8	4.7	6.2	4.5	32.1
2018	1.3	1.9	6.3	8.1	4.1	5.3	3.6	30.4
2019	1.5	2.4	8.6	9.7	4.3	6.2	4.2	34.1
2020	1.7	2.6	12.3	11.1	5.1	6.7	4.0	41.6
2021	1.9	3.3	14.4	13.8	7.1	6.5	3.8	48.5
2022	1.7	2.8	11.5	11.0	6.8	5.4	3.1	40.3
2023	1.8	3.1	10.9	12.6	8.7	6.1	4.5	49.0
2024	1.7	3.4	11.6	11.1	10.3	6.3	4.4	62.2
2025	2.0	4.6	15.5	15.5	10.6	7.6	5.6	68.9

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To explore the stocks that have powered U.S. market growth, check out The 10 Largest S&P 500 Stocks in 2025 on Voronoi.

Where you fill up can make a significant difference in what you pay at the pump.

This map shows average regular gasoline prices across the U.S. using September 2026 data from AAA Fuel Tracker. Prices are per gallon and rounded to the nearest cent.

Where Gas Prices Run Highest and Lowest

The broader divide is regional. The highest fuel prices are concentrated in the West, while much of the South sits below the $4.48 national average.

The table below ranks prices from highest to lowest in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Rank	State or District	Average Gas Price in September 2026 ($)
1	California	6.24
2	Hawaii	5.57
3	Washington	5.55
4	Nevada	5.37
5	Oregon	5.09
6	Alaska	5.07
7	Idaho	5.00
8	Utah	4.98
9	Illinois	4.85
10	Michigan	4.81
11	Arizona	4.78
12	Montana	4.61
13	Pennsylvania	4.55
13	Wyoming	4.55
15	New Mexico	4.53
16	Connecticut	4.49
16	New York	4.49
18	Vermont	4.46
19	District of Columbia	4.43
19	Maine	4.43
19	Ohio	4.43
22	Massachusetts	4.40
22	Nebraska	4.40
22	New Jersey	4.40
25	Rhode Island	4.39
25	Wisconsin	4.39
27	Florida	4.38
28	Minnesota	4.37
28	New Hampshire	4.37
28	West Virginia	4.37
31	Delaware	4.35
32	Iowa	4.33
32	Maryland	4.33
34	South Dakota	4.32
35	Colorado	4.31
36	North Dakota	4.26
37	Virginia	4.24
38	Missouri	4.18
39	Kansas	4.17
40	Kentucky	4.16
41	North Carolina	4.13
42	Oklahoma	4.12
43	Georgia	4.11
44	Alabama	4.09
45	Arkansas	4.06
45	Tennessee	4.06
47	South Carolina	4.05
48	Louisiana	4.03
49	Mississippi	4.00
50	Indiana	3.96
50	Texas	3.96
--	U.S. National Average	4.48

Part of the difference reflects the journey fuel takes to reach a station. Longer distances from refineries, ports, and distribution terminals can mean higher transportation costs, which can push up retail prices.

States such as Louisiana and Texas also benefit from extensive oil and refining infrastructure, helping keep distribution costs relatively low.

Why California Costs So Much More

California’s premium goes beyond taxes. The Golden State requires a special gasoline blend designed to reduce air pollution, which costs more to produce. State environmental programs also add compliance costs for fuel suppliers, alongside state and local taxes.

The state’s specialized fuel comes from a relatively limited pool of suppliers. California is geographically separated from major U.S. refining centers along the Gulf Coast, and only some refineries elsewhere can produce gasoline that meets its requirements. Bringing in additional supply is therefore more complicated than simply sourcing cheaper fuel from another state.

This becomes especially important when a refinery shuts down for maintenance or experiences an unexpected outage. Replacement supplies can take time to arrive, leaving the market more vulnerable to price spikes. The same factors that keep California expensive under normal conditions can make disruptions more painful for drivers.

No Relief This Fall

Gas prices usually ease after the summer driving season. Demand falls as travel slows, while cooler weather allows refiners to use less expensive gasoline components that would evaporate too easily in summer heat. The seasonal change in fuel requirements can help reduce costs even without a decline in global oil prices.

This September, however, that usual pattern has been disrupted. Expensive crude oil and continued volatility in the Strait of Hormuz have pushed up prices at the pump. The national average of $4.48 per gallon is the highest on record for late September.

Local advantages offer only partial protection from those pressures. Gasoline prices generally track crude oil costs, so even states with lower distribution costs and taxes remain exposed to oil-market disruptions.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To compare these prices with major global events, check out Oil Prices and Geopolitical Events on Voronoi.