When I saw the Andy Borowitz article on facebook, my first reaction was "He (Trump) didn't say that, did he?"
When I opened the link and saw it was by Borowitz, I knew it was satire. But...
As Chien22 points out the line is blurry. Trump has said outrageous things, some more outrageous than what Borowitz has him saying, so it wouldn't take much to believe the article.
A couple of weeks ago Seth Meyers had one of his writers reading a speech that Trump gave at a breakfast where he spoke about black history month. I turned to my wife and said "that's made up," and googled it. Nope. It was pretty much word for word.
He praises Martin Luther King then complains about the press's treatment of him.
He throws in Frederick Douglas in the present tense ("has done good work"), Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks then complains about CNN before praising Fox News.
A month to honor the people who overcame slavery and Jim Crow laws and still don't feel a part of society and he can't stop whining about himself.
Kellyanne Conway says lies are alternative facts (that has got to win new word of the year for 2017) and then talks about the Bowling Green Massacre that never occurred.
The White House lists 78 terrorist attacks that the "dishonest" press didn't cover (they did) but of course the terrorist attack on a Quebec mosque isn't one of them, especially when the shooter had praised Trump.
He tweets that negative polls are FAKE NEWS but uses positive polls to prove a point..
And any judge that rules against him is either biased because of his heritage or a "so-called" judge.
Satire is great and the over the top (yet spot on) spoofs on Saturday Night Live are clearly satire. But the subtle satire of Borowitz is different. When Apple and Google and Facebook finally figure out a definition of and a way to identify FAKE NEWS will the very clever Borowitz be considered part of it.