Both the nation and states saw their population growth slow in the last year but for different reasons. For instance, while domestic migration – movement between states – doesn’t affect the national population, it can increase or decrease state populations.

“With natural change less of a contributor to growth than it used to be, some states – especially those without positive net domestic migration – are dependent on international migration for their population to grow,” says Marc Perry, senior demographer at the U.S. Census Bureau. “The large drops in growth rates we see for some states this past year is a reminder of that.”

Figure 2 and Figure 3 show components of change per 1,000 population for the past two years. Each state has three bars, representing each component of change: net international migration (blue), net domestic migration (gray) and natural change (orange).

Figure 2 is a dynamic version that toggles between the two years, while Figure 3 is a static image of the same data.

On Figure 3, the 2023-2024 period is displayed on the top half of the graph and 2024-2025 on the bottom. States are grouped from left to right in columns by the nine census divisions: Pacific, Mountain, West North Central, West South Central, East North Central, East South Central, South Atlantic, Middle Atlantic and New England.

Between 2023 and 2024, the blue bars are the largest – typically by a significant margin – in 40 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.), indicating net international migration was the major growth factor there.

This was the case in many northeastern coastal states: NIM growth drove population change in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

Why did international migration fluctuations impact these and other states like them so much?

First, among the five northeastern states mentioned, all had negative net domestic migration – they lost more people than they gained from domestic moves. Second, although four of the five had positive natural change (more births than deaths), international migration gains were substantially larger in each one.

Natural change fueled significant growth in other states like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah between 2023 and 2024. As a result, their population change did not depend as much on net international migration.

Some states like West Virginia lost population due to negative natural change (more deaths than births) that was not offset enough by positive NIM or domestic migration, resulting in overall population decline.

When international migration slowed between 2024 and 2025, states throughout the country felt it, particularly those that relied on it most heavily for growth.

The top half of Figure 3 contrasts sharply with the bottom half (2024-2025): every blue bar for NIM shrank, some significantly.

Because of reduced international migration, population gain from NIM was the largest component of change in only 30 states and D.C., down from 40 states and D.C. the year before.

Domestic migration became more prominent overall and the largest component of change in 16 states (up from nine the year before).

States that saw their largest component shift from international migration in 2023-2024 to domestic migration in 2024-2025 were Arizona, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wyoming.

In three states – California, Colorado and Utah – natural change became the largest source of growth due to international migration declines. Alaska was the only state where natural change was the largest component of change during both periods.

California is a good example of how variation in components of change can dramatically impact population patterns.

The state’s population increased between 2023 and 2024 despite losing over 240,000 people through domestic migration. That’s because NIM added more than enough people (312,761) to cover the losses. Natural change contributed to growth but to a lesser extent (111,794).

In 2025, California experienced domestic out migration as it had the year before (a loss of nearly 230,000). This time, however, NIM declined so much – by over 200,000 – that it could no longer offset the domestic migration losses.

Despite a little help from positive natural change (109,715), the state still had a small population loss overall.

In March, the Census Bureau is scheduled to release estimates of the July 1, 2025, population totals and components of change for U.S. metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas and counties, and population totals for Puerto Rico municipios.

The county and metro/micro estimates will provide additional insight into how these demographic patterns are playing out geographically within states.

The data in this story come from the Population Estimates Program’s January 2026 release that includes population totals, components of change and voting-age population of the nation, 50 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico. To explore more of the data, visit <www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.html>.