The difficulty suggests to me that you concept of neoliberalism is not well-defined.

If you would ask whether the US is a conservative country, answering isn't easy either. That doesn't mean that "conservative" is a word without meaning.

One of the points of the Washington Consensus is "Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;"

The US themselves doesn't manage to muster the political will to cut agricultural subsidies themselves but that doesn't mean that it doesn't use institutions such as the IMF to pressure other countries into cutting agricultural subsidies.

The word neoliberalism came up for policies that the US pushed in Latin America. Often against the local democratic will.

Socialism is in it's nature for open borders. "The Internationale" calls for uniting different people. Neoliberalism is similar. It wants to get rid of borders.

Treating corporations as people who can sue states in Investor-state dispute settlement proceedings is part of what neoliberalism is about. Clauses that were put into law in the US through trade agreements instead of the normal democratic process.

If you would ask Ron Paul about Investor-state dispute settlement I'm pretty sure that he would reject the idea because it means that states give up part of their sovereignty. As a result Ron Paul is no neoliberal. Ron Paul is also for free trade but he was a very different idea of what free trade is supposed to mean then the neoliberals.