I went to the article and went right to very the last image --- amazingly huge numbers.

So, I went to the usaspending.gov site myself, and you only see these huge numbers if you don't choose any filters.

That means the 'huge numbers' are total spending, and not for Uvalde. He typed the city into the sidebar, but he never added the filter.

That's either stupid, or deceptive.

Either way, it's silly to trust (or even read) the rest of the article when this part is off by orders of magnitude.

I went to the article and saw the last image --- amazingly huge numbers.

So, I went to the usaspending.gov site myself, and you only see these huge numbers if you don't choose any filters.

That means the 'huge numbers' are total spending, and not for Uvalde. He typed the city into the sidebar, but he never added the filter.

That's either stupid, or deceptive.

Either way, it's silly to trust (or even read) the rest of the article when this part is off by orders of magnitude.

I went to the article and saw the last image --- amazing numbers.

So, I went to the usaspending.gov site myself, and you only see these huge numbers if you don't choose any filters.

That means the 'huge numbers' are total spending, and not for Uvalde. He typed the city into the sidebar, but he never added the filter.

That's either stupid, or deceptive.

Until this is fixed, and retracted, I'm not reading the rest of the article.