Trump Accuses Sadiq Khan: ‘London’s Identity at Risk from Mass Migration’

Paul Riverbank, 12/15/2025The fierce feud between Sadiq Khan and Donald Trump spotlights global tensions over migration and identity, with each man embodying starkly different visions for London’s future—fueling a debate that stretches far beyond the city itself.

It flared up again recently, sparked by Trump’s fresh volley during a chat with POLITICO. Trump, never one for subtlety, dismissed Khan as “a disaster” and “incompetent,” lines familiar to anyone tracking his take on global leaders. What stood out this time, though, was how he tied Khan’s tenure to the shifting face of London itself. In Trump's view, the city’s demographic changes—he points to the White British majority slipping to 37%—amount to more than statistics. They’re warnings, he says, of a city losing its anchor, drifting from tradition: “London’s a different place,” Trump mourned. “I love London. And I hate to see it happen.”

It’s hardly an isolated critique. Recent writings emerging from Trump’s circles, notably the administration’s latest National Security Strategy paper, have grown more pointed. The document spells out concerns of “civilizational erasure” across Europe, arguing that open migration, if unchecked, could turn proud nation-states into shadows of their former selves. Some passages verge on the apocalyptic: “Many European states,” the paper suggests, “will not be viable countries any longer.” Not exactly light bedtime reading.

Mayor Khan, for his part, isn’t interested in giving Trump the last word. Appearing on LBC radio, Khan tackled not just the words, but the potential consequences of rhetoric like Trump’s. He drew a direct line between inflammatory speech and real-world violence, warning, “There is a direct link between language and how sometimes people can become radicalized... you can call it groomed, and so forth.” For Khan, this isn’t just punditry—it’s personal, touching on the spikes in anti-Muslim hate incidents he says are driving fear and division in his city.

Khan’s concern stretches further. He argues that when Trump speaks, his words don’t just ripple through the news cycle—they can legitimize fringes and drag them into the center ground. “You are seeing people who are taking the views of the President of the United States as a green light to behave in a certain way,” Khan says, sounding more resigned than angry. His worry has a statistical edge: Hate crime reports in the UK, especially Islamophobic incidents, have risen sharply during the Trump era, he claims.

What’s changed is how pointed and personal the rivalry has become. Khan, reflecting on the frequency of Trump’s comments, sounded almost baffled. “Every opportunity the President gets when there’s a microphone placed in front of him, he appears to be obsessing about me. And I’m unclear why.” For a mayor heading a city with its own long list of headaches—housing, policing, public transport—it’s not just bemusing but concerning that he’s so often the subject of White House barbs. “There are bigger fish to fry on the global stage than me,” was the subtext.

Peel back the personalities, though, and this feud captures deeper anxieties—about who gets to belong in a changing city, how identity is shaped, and where the boundaries of acceptable debate now lie. When Trump raises the alarm on London’s diversity, he frames it as a story of decline. “London is a warning,” he suggested, placing Khan as its emblem. For Trump, the issue is not just migration but a sense of cultural loss.

Khan, by contrast, throws the lens the other way. He treats the city’s multiculturalism as its greatest asset—its ability to thrive, attract investors, and remain open in a splintered world. “They seem to feel insecure that a city that is progressive, that is liberal, that is diverse, that is multicultural, is so incredibly successful,” he contended, his words aimed not just at Trump but anyone unsettled by change.

The public, meanwhile, finds itself caught in the echo chamber, the Khan-Trump tussle playing out everywhere from school runs to Commons committees to digital comment threads. The dispute isn’t going anywhere; if anything, it keeps drawing out bigger questions: Who’s entitled to set the tone for a city? Who defines what counts as success? And, perhaps most pointedly, in an age of almost performative division, whose version of London’s story comes to matter most?

In this high-stakes argument—played as much for headline value as for policy—the real substance can risk getting lost. Yet as long as London’s skyline keeps shifting and its mayor and Trump trade blows, it’s a conversation the city won’t easily escape. And perhaps, for all the heat, that relentless debate is part of what makes London, for better or worse, impossible to ignore.

Ask a Londoner about their mayor these days, and you might get a smile—or a sigh. But bring up Donald Trump in the same breath, and suddenly the conversation heats up like a kettle left too long on the stove. Anyone following the back-and-forth between Sadiq Khan and the former U.S. president will know this rivalry has lost none of its bite, with their latest exchanges sounding more like the sharp dialogue of a decades-old grudge than typical diplomatic sparring.It flared up again recently, sparked by Trump’s fresh volley during a chat with POLITICO. Trump, never one for subtlety, dismissed Khan as “a disaster” and “incompetent,” lines familiar to anyone tracking his take on global leaders. What stood out this time, though, was how he tied Khan’s tenure to the shifting face of London itself. In Trump's view, the city’s demographic changes—he points to the White British majority slipping to 37%—amount to more than statistics. They’re warnings, he says, of a city losing its anchor, drifting from tradition: “London’s a different place,” Trump mourned. “I love London. And I hate to see it happen.”It’s hardly an isolated critique. Recent writings emerging from Trump’s circles, notably the administration’s latest National Security Strategy paper, have grown more pointed. The document spells out concerns of “civilizational erasure” across Europe, arguing that open migration, if unchecked, could turn proud nation-states into shadows of their former selves. Some passages verge on the apocalyptic: “Many European states,” the paper suggests, “will not be viable countries any longer.” Not exactly light bedtime reading.Mayor Khan, for his part, isn’t interested in giving Trump the last word. Appearing on LBC radio, Khan tackled not just the words, but the potential consequences of rhetoric like Trump’s. He drew a direct line between inflammatory speech and real-world violence, warning, “There is a direct link between language and how sometimes people can become radicalized... you can call it groomed, and so forth.” For Khan, this isn’t just punditry—it’s personal, touching on the spikes in anti-Muslim hate incidents he says are driving fear and division in his city.Khan’s concern stretches further. He argues that when Trump speaks, his words don’t just ripple through the news cycle—they can legitimize fringes and drag them into the center ground. “You are seeing people who are taking the views of the President of the United States as a green light to behave in a certain way,” Khan says, sounding more resigned than angry. His worry has a statistical edge: Hate crime reports in the UK, especially Islamophobic incidents, have risen sharply during the Trump era, he claims.What’s changed is how pointed and personal the rivalry has become. Khan, reflecting on the frequency of Trump’s comments, sounded almost baffled. “Every opportunity the President gets when there’s a microphone placed in front of him, he appears to be obsessing about me. And I’m unclear why.” For a mayor heading a city with its own long list of headaches—housing, policing, public transport—it’s not just bemusing but concerning that he’s so often the subject of White House barbs. “There are bigger fish to fry on the global stage than me,” was the subtext.Peel back the personalities, though, and this feud captures deeper anxieties—about who gets to belong in a changing city, how identity is shaped, and where the boundaries of acceptable debate now lie. When Trump raises the alarm on London’s diversity, he frames it as a story of decline. “London is a warning,” he suggested, placing Khan as its emblem. For Trump, the issue is not just migration but a sense of cultural loss.Khan, by contrast, throws the lens the other way. He treats the city’s multiculturalism as its greatest asset—its ability to thrive, attract investors, and remain open in a splintered world. “They seem to feel insecure that a city that is progressive, that is liberal, that is diverse, that is multicultural, is so incredibly successful,” he contended, his words aimed not just at Trump but anyone unsettled by change.The public, meanwhile, finds itself caught in the echo chamber, the Khan-Trump tussle playing out everywhere from school runs to Commons committees to digital comment threads. The dispute isn’t going anywhere; if anything, it keeps drawing out bigger questions: Who’s entitled to set the tone for a city? Who defines what counts as success? And, perhaps most pointedly, in an age of almost performative division, whose version of London’s story comes to matter most?In this high-stakes argument—played as much for headline value as for policy—the real substance can risk getting lost. Yet as long as London’s skyline keeps shifting and its mayor and Trump trade blows, it’s a conversation the city won’t easily escape. And perhaps, for all the heat, that relentless debate is part of what makes London, for better or worse, impossible to ignore.