Analyzing what is Best for Business in 2026
This is an excerpt from our July 2026 newsletter. Subscribe at the bottom of this page.
CNBC's new 2026 Top States for Business ranks Ohio at #1, followed by North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, and Minnesota. Ohio's ranking was driven largely by strong infrastructure and low costs.
CNBC’s rankings capture why these states are attractive places to build and operate but are not built to capture whether individual states can remain, over time, sustainable places to recruit and retain the workforce those investments depend on. That requires a longer, "built to last" view than shorter-term site selection metrics capture.
Here's what we're thinking about in more detail:
1. Reproductive care is variable, but legal to some extent in four out of the top five. Ohio’s constitution protects abortion up to almost 22 weeks. North Carolina allows care up to almost 13 weeks, with restrictions. Virginia protects abortion up to the third trimester, with language on November’s ballot that could protect access in the state constitution. Minnesota protects access in statute and constitution. Texas is the outlier, with a ban that is among the strictest in the nation (one that also impacts miscarriage management and emergency care). Fortune recently asked whether a state can be “‘best for business’ while restricting abortion,” and we do note something of a trend over time. This year, only one top-five state has an outright ban. In 2025, two of the top five (Texas and Florida) had bans in place, and in 2024, three (Texas, Georgia, and Florida) had bans in place.
2. The rankings skew toward shorter-term business benefits and costs. Infrastructure, tax rates, utility costs, and permitting timelines are essential elements of site selection in the here and now.
3. Worker quality of life – especially for wage-earners – is less prioritized. Executives may find a state affordable and opportunity-rich, while hourly workers face low wages, limited benefits, and constrained medical care – a K-shaped divide the rankings don’t measure.
4. The scoring for worst and best states to live in shows another facet. Most of the "Worst States to Live In" have bans in place. (Missouri and Utah are the exceptions, but face ongoing legal and ballot fights over access.) Of the ten “Best States to Live In,” six protect abortion access, three allow it with limitations, and only North Dakota bans it outright.
5. Time horizon matters. Over time, restricted care drives doctor shortages, care deserts, and maternal health risks, which can shrink candidate pools, complicate benefits, and increase legal and reputational risk for employers. These pressures may compound to present greater benefits complexity, more legal review, and more pressure on HR to solve problems created by state policy.
6. Texas remains a bellwether. Despite a touted legislative "fix" to try to protect the "life of the mother," Texas women are still being denied lifesaving care. This month, we read about Austin’s Lynn Callaway, who was denied miscarriage care by two hospital ERs, after Texas' "Life of the Mother Act" took effect. She developed a dangerous infection and waited six days for a doctor to prescribe abortion medication and antibiotics. Her lawsuit alleges the hospitals violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Texas kept its top-five ranking this year, but ranked 49th in Quality of Life. Young doctors look elsewhere to practice, and maternity care deserts continue to grow. In states that ban care, the gap between “good for business investment” and “good to live in” is one that businesses focused on long-term stability should continue to watch.
What else we're watching:
More than 60 biopharma companies have filed an amicus brief supporting access to mifepristone, saying, “FDA-approved drugs should not be subject to judicial recall. When FDA determines that a drug is safe and effective, clinicians and patients should have access on those terms. Plaintiffs’ attack on FDA’s well-founded scientific judgment would wreak havoc on the American pharmaceutical and biotech industry.”
In another potential broadside on access to FDA-approved medications, Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche recently opened the door to invoking the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that includes a ban on mailing “every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” Such a shift could be used to stop the mailing of abortion medications to patients and would have huge impacts on access to care for women living in states with and without abortion bans. It would also create uncertainty and risk for telehealth and pharmacy businesses and unforeseen implications for private shipping companies operating across state lines.