Lack of Critical Thinking Combined with Hyper Political Emotion

What happens when you combine lack of critical thinking with hyper political emotion? You get a viral internet thread that spreads far and wide. The problem? In this particular case it appears to be false. 

Let's critically analyze the claim using logic and see what we find.

The Claim

The images and posts, claim:

• The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, halted a $2.6 million annual payment to former President Barack Obama, described as “royalties” for the use of his name in “Obamacare” (the Affordable Care Act).

• It alleges Obama has been collecting this payment since 2010, totaling $39 million in taxpayer dollars over 15 years.


• The article frames this as a “shocking display of fiscal responsibility” by DOGE, uncovering a hidden clause in the Affordable Care Act that entitled Obama to royalties each time the program’s nickname was used.

The Evidence

Web sources (e.g., Snopes, Times Now, KnowInsiders, India Today, Tech ARP, Lead Stories) and posts on X consistently identify The Dunning-Kruger Times as the source of this claim.

The Dunning-Kruger Times “About Us” page explicitly states it produces “parody, satire, and tomfoolery,” not factual reporting.

The Dunning-Kruger Times is not a credible news source for factual information. Its content is intended as humor or satire, not truth. This alone renders the article invalid as a factual report, as it is explicitly fictional.

• The claim that Obama received $2.6 million annually, totaling $39 million since 2010, is false. No public records, government budgets, or credible reports support this. The idea of royalties for using “Obamacare” contradicts U.S. trademark law (e.g., Obama didn’t trademark the term, and it’s a public domain nickname) and ACA legislation. The article’s assertion is a fabrication, consistent with the site’s satirical intent.


• The Dunning-Kruger Times updated this narrative in 2025, attributing the action to DOGE.


• The article’s revival of a debunked satirical claim, now reframed with DOGE, confirms its fictional nature. The timing—coinciding with DOGE’s high-profile actions in 2025—suggests an attempt to exploit current events for engagement, but it remains satire, not fact.

Conclusion

The article “DOGE Halts $2.6 Million Annual Payment to Obama for ‘Obamacare’ Royalties” on The Dunning-Kruger Times is not valid as a factual report. It is a satirical piece, as its source is explicitly a parody website known for humor and fiction, not factual journalism. The claims that Barack Obama received $2.6 million annually for Obamacare royalties, totaling $39 million since 2010, and that DOGE halted this payment, are false. No credible evidence—public records, government budgets, or legal documents—supports these assertions, and fact-checkers have debunked similar claims since 2017. The article’s intent is to entertain or provoke, not inform, making it invalid for factual purposes as of February 27, 2025.

This, in my opinion highlights the problems with lack of critical thinking. Or, perhaps it's lazy thinking as it is much easier to share something that fits your ideologicalframework than investigate the truth. However, I will also say that the volume of claims by all sides make it literally impossible to follow up and investigate them all. Perhaps there are those who know this and know the average person's propensity to share something that fits their ideological framework using these two things to their advantage.

What Can We Do?

When you see or read something, regardless of the source, you should have a healthy amount of skepticism. Healthy skepticism does mean automatically think it's true or false. Keep in mind that there are some out there who want to manipulate you by manipulating the narrative. Also remember, even trusted sources can get it wrong.

If what you see or read is important to you, before you share take a deep breath and do your research.