You seem to have constructed another strawman with this comment, and are arguing against a position I didn't state. Again, for clarity, I said that it's possible to believe both DOGE was the wrong way to achieve reduced spending AND we should reduce spending.

"Even Mexico's elections were very recently manipulated by USAID" - according to one politician.

The article only named 2 groups that received USAID funding:

Mexicans against Corruption and Impunity

Article 19 (a free speech group)

Now I don't know if these groups do what their names advertise. But Mexico is a sovereign state. If its government thinks it's against the national interest for Mexican non-profits to receive foreign money, they are free to pass laws to do so. And far more likely to work than telling a foreign government to "please stop sending money".

Inflation skyrocketed in the last few years, so all the numbers went up.

> it was instrumental in taking away sovereignty from other countries. Even Mexico's elections were very recently manipulated by USAID as mentioned by the previous president of Mexico.

You're quoting the guy that weakened democratic institutions, attacked electoral authorities, attacked journalists, increased military power, spread disinformation, and worsened the COVID pandemic. Notice how he didn't call out USAID during Trump's presidency, but did call them out during Biden's? I'm sure him having a public friendship with Trump has nothing to do with him waiting to call out USAID. Or the fact that USAID funded Mexican free speech groups that spoke out against López Obrador. Yep, just a super nice president getting oppressed by the big mean international aid group, I'm sure that's all it was.

If we're going to remember that USAID has been used for evil, then you must also remember how it was used for good. 92 million lives were saved over 20 years. That's potentially 92 million dead people over the next 20 years if USAID remains shuttered.