That marked a jump from the prior 12-month period, when revised federal figures show the state had a net loss to other states of nearly 19,200 people. That new revision was actually good news for Massachusetts, as previous government data from a year ago showed a loss to other states of 27,500 in the 2023-2024 period.

In the prior two years, Massachusetts experienced even larger outflows — roughly 35,400 and 48,000 — amid a broader acceptance of remote work because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Massachusetts has routinely ranked in the top five states for domestic outmigration in recent years, and last year was no exception: It finished fifth behind California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey in the loss of people to other states. Of the New England states, only Maine and New Hampshire saw positive domestic in-migration.

Still, the Massachusetts population has been growing slightly, hitting an estimated 7.15 million as of July 1 of last year. Massachusetts is still drawing more international immigrants, though at a far slower pace than in previous years when officials said increasing numbers of migrant families were stressing the state’s family shelter system.

The outmigration data has long been a politically valuable tool, depending on which argument you’re trying to make. Governor Maura Healey, who is seeking reelection this year, has regularly touted the importance of keeping residents and businesses in — and drawing new ones to — Massachusetts as part of a pledge to attack the state’s high cost of living and housing. The first-term Democrat went as far as pointing directly to migration data early in her tenure as a measuring stick.

And last year, her administration highlighted the numbers, which showed the losses dwindling from the pandemic-fueled highs, as good news.

This year’s ebb, meanwhile, could complicate her pitch of making Massachusetts a beacon for working families.

Healey and her Republican opponents have differed widely in framing the economic direction of the state, and her early campaign messaging this year has focused largely on promoting her “affordability” agenda and, to an equal degree, attacking Trump as a chaos agent who bears blame for the rising prices residents feel in their day-to-day life.

“I hope it can serve as a catalyzing data point,” Doug Howgate, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said of the latest outmigration number. “It just hopefully shows you like everything in the policy realm, you can’t take your foot off the gas.”

Boston University finance professor Mark Williams found in 2024 that the top driving factors behind domestic outmigration from Massachusetts are taxes, housing costs, and health care expenses.

Immigration from other countries has helped offset the losses, but that could be tougher under the Trump administration’s crackdown. “Now we’re looking at public policy, White House policy, that’s going to restrict immigration flow,” Williams said. “This will create a challenge for Massachusetts.”

Economist Don Klepper-Smith has warned about what he calls the “three T’s” hurting states like Massachusetts: taxes, temperature, and traffic. (The Tax Foundation think tank recently ranked Massachusetts 43rd in terms of tax competitiveness.)

Now, Klepper-Smith says he would add a fourth “T”: the targeting of blue states for federal spending cuts.

“I think that creates a difficult situation and a slippery slope for fiscal health in New England,” said Klepper-Smith, formerly based in New England but now semi-retired in South Carolina. “There’s going to be upside pressure on property taxes. … There’s going to be growing calls for regionalism, growing calls for efficiencies. Every dollar counts in this economy. Every dollar counts.”

Jon Chesto can be reached at jon.chesto@globe.com. Follow him @jonchesto. Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him @mattpstout.

A proposal in the New Hampshire Legislature to charge a $50 annual registration fee for bicyclists in order to use state-owned paths, trails and roadways is proving so unpopular that even the bill’s sponsor is backpedaling. 

“All bicycles and electric bicycles, if operated on a public way shall be registered with the division of motor vehicles,” the bill states. It says any bike riders who are not registered could face a fine of $100 per violation.

On the New Hampshire House of Representatives website, nearly 14,000 people have registered their opposition to the measure. Just 39 support it, as of Tuesday evening.

Republican Rep. Tom Walsh from Hooksett, who sponsored the bill, testified Tuesday before the House Transportation Committee.

“I don’t see the bill moving forward,” Walsh said, adding that the $50 amount was supposed to be a “placeholder” until it could be determined what a reasonable fee would be.

Walsh said he brought the “flawed” bill to committee because he wanted to start a conversation about paying for bike infrastructure as lawmakers consider toll hikes and other fee increases for car owners. He noted that ATV and snowmobile owners have to pay a fee to operate their vehicles on state trails.

“This was a genuine attempt at fair funding,” Walsh said. “I still believe that user fees are the best way to do that. If you want to use nice things, help us pay for these nice things.”  

Democratic Rep. Timothy Horgan of Durham called the bill an “extremely bad idea” and said rail trails are used heavily by pedestrians as well.

“Are we going to start handing out stickers on our walking shoes to use the rail trails?” he asked. “Where does this end?”

During public comment, Donna Cusack from Hudson called it a “horrible, horrible bill.” 

“If I have to pay a fee to ride on a rail trail, I’ll put my bike on the back of my car and drive 5 miles across the border and I’ll start driving on the Massachusetts rail trails where I don’t have to pay a fee,” she said.

Craig Rennie, the chief supervisor of the New Hampshire Bureau of Trails who did not take a position on the bill, said there are 320 miles of state-owned rail trails. He said their maintenance is funded with registration fees for snowmobiles and ATVs, as well as some federal grants and donations.

“If we had more funding for rail trail management, that would help with developing future trails,” he said.