Trump Slams Khan: London’s Diversity ‘A Disaster,’ Leadership Under Fire

Paul Riverbank, 12/15/2025Trump and Khan clash over London's diversity, migration, and rhetoric, fueling debate on city identity.

Donald Trump’s latest volley came in an interview with POLITICO, in which he skewered Khan’s approach to governance and, not for the first time, blamed London’s changing demographics for what he sees as the city’s woes. “He’s got a totally different ideology,” Trump declared. “And he gets elected because so many people have come in.” The implication couldn’t be clearer: Trump is once again tying London’s evolution to migration, lamenting what he describes as a drift from European roots and values. With language as sharp as ever, he didn’t mince words, branding Khan “a disaster,” “incompetent,” and other barbed terms that have become familiar in his rhetorical arsenal.

Sadiq Khan, since stepping into City Hall, has rarely held back when responding to such broadsides. But this time, he went further, insisting that Trump’s language crosses a line from fierce criticism into territory that fosters division—and, ultimately, emboldens extremism. “There is a direct link between language and how sometimes people can become radicalized, you can call it groomed, and so forth,” Khan stated on LBC, clearly alarmed by what he sees as the ripple effects of incendiary rhetoric. He pointed out that anti-Muslim hate incidents in the UK have surged dramatically, connecting the dots to public figures whose words carry weight.

Sometimes, politics can obscure a simple personal dynamic—and in this case, one can’t help but wonder whether Trump’s repeated return to Khan is about more than policy. “I literally have no idea why President Trump is so obsessed with this mayor of London,” Khan remarked, half in exasperation, half in bemusement. “I’m not sure what he’s got against a liberal, progressive, diverse, successful city like London.”

But the stakes, frankly, are bigger than one man’s pique. Khan leveled his sharpest accusation squarely: “Some of the things President Trump has said and done lead me to believe he’s a President who is racist, who is misogynistic, and who is Islamophobic. And I’d go further. I think he’s somebody who is anti-Muslim as well.” Few leading politicians in Europe or the United States have been this blunt on record.

The numbers Trump invokes—namely, the decline in the White British share of London’s population, down to 37% according to recent data—aren’t merely statistics in this context. For Trump, they serve as proof that the very character of the city has shifted beneath the feet of its original inhabitants. For Khan—and many others—they are the hallmarks of a metropolis that has always been in flux, perpetually reinventing itself.

Khan, for his part, is unambiguous about the city’s direction: he insists London’s diversity remains one of its greatest strengths. Foreign investment and tourism, especially from American visitors, haven’t dried up but, if anything, have buoyed London’s status as a global destination. “They seem to feel insecure that a city that is progressive, that is liberal, that is diverse, that is multicultural, is so incredibly successful. I think their nervousness and worry is it’s the antithesis, it’s the antidote, to all they stand for, which is unilateralism, which is nativism, which is protectionism,” Khan argued.

Longtime observers will recall that this antagonism isn’t new—or confined to press interviews and Twitter barbs. It goes back to Trump’s 2015 remarks advocating for a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S. After the San Bernardino tragedy, it was Khan who replied publicly and strongly, accusing Trump of turning “xenophobia, racism, and ‘otherness’” into political strategy. If anything, the conversation has become more personal, each side digging in ever deeper.

Where does this latest exchange leave us? The answer is, probably, more divided—if not just in the press, then in the kinds of conversations happening in London’s cafes, its council chambers, and on social media. The underlying questions—about migration, identity, and belonging—don’t lend themselves easily to consensus. The language chosen by those in power, as Khan warns, rarely fades into the ether; it lingers, sometimes picks up adherents, and occasionally opens the gate for prejudice to slip in behind it.

Whether this feud soon cools seems unlikely. In an era where the definition of success for a city, or a leader, is bitterly contested, expect more public skirmishes—more declarations, more defensive postures, and, inevitably, further debate about who gets to own the narrative. For now, at least, neither Khan nor Trump seems willing to yield any ground.

The latest clash between London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, and former U.S. President Donald Trump has unfolded not so much as a routine war of words, but as a complex contest about the very soul of modern cities—and who gets to set the terms. What began years ago as an ideological spat appears now to have fully spilled over into personal terrain, with neither principal showing much inclination to pull back.Donald Trump’s latest volley came in an interview with POLITICO, in which he skewered Khan’s approach to governance and, not for the first time, blamed London’s changing demographics for what he sees as the city’s woes. “He’s got a totally different ideology,” Trump declared. “And he gets elected because so many people have come in.” The implication couldn’t be clearer: Trump is once again tying London’s evolution to migration, lamenting what he describes as a drift from European roots and values. With language as sharp as ever, he didn’t mince words, branding Khan “a disaster,” “incompetent,” and other barbed terms that have become familiar in his rhetorical arsenal.Sadiq Khan, since stepping into City Hall, has rarely held back when responding to such broadsides. But this time, he went further, insisting that Trump’s language crosses a line from fierce criticism into territory that fosters division—and, ultimately, emboldens extremism. “There is a direct link between language and how sometimes people can become radicalized, you can call it groomed, and so forth,” Khan stated on LBC, clearly alarmed by what he sees as the ripple effects of incendiary rhetoric. He pointed out that anti-Muslim hate incidents in the UK have surged dramatically, connecting the dots to public figures whose words carry weight.Sometimes, politics can obscure a simple personal dynamic—and in this case, one can’t help but wonder whether Trump’s repeated return to Khan is about more than policy. “I literally have no idea why President Trump is so obsessed with this mayor of London,” Khan remarked, half in exasperation, half in bemusement. “I’m not sure what he’s got against a liberal, progressive, diverse, successful city like London.”But the stakes, frankly, are bigger than one man’s pique. Khan leveled his sharpest accusation squarely: “Some of the things President Trump has said and done lead me to believe he’s a President who is racist, who is misogynistic, and who is Islamophobic. And I’d go further. I think he’s somebody who is anti-Muslim as well.” Few leading politicians in Europe or the United States have been this blunt on record.The numbers Trump invokes—namely, the decline in the White British share of London’s population, down to 37% according to recent data—aren’t merely statistics in this context. For Trump, they serve as proof that the very character of the city has shifted beneath the feet of its original inhabitants. For Khan—and many others—they are the hallmarks of a metropolis that has always been in flux, perpetually reinventing itself.Khan, for his part, is unambiguous about the city’s direction: he insists London’s diversity remains one of its greatest strengths. Foreign investment and tourism, especially from American visitors, haven’t dried up but, if anything, have buoyed London’s status as a global destination. “They seem to feel insecure that a city that is progressive, that is liberal, that is diverse, that is multicultural, is so incredibly successful. I think their nervousness and worry is it’s the antithesis, it’s the antidote, to all they stand for, which is unilateralism, which is nativism, which is protectionism,” Khan argued.Longtime observers will recall that this antagonism isn’t new—or confined to press interviews and Twitter barbs. It goes back to Trump’s 2015 remarks advocating for a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S. After the San Bernardino tragedy, it was Khan who replied publicly and strongly, accusing Trump of turning “xenophobia, racism, and ‘otherness’” into political strategy. If anything, the conversation has become more personal, each side digging in ever deeper.Where does this latest exchange leave us? The answer is, probably, more divided—if not just in the press, then in the kinds of conversations happening in London’s cafes, its council chambers, and on social media. The underlying questions—about migration, identity, and belonging—don’t lend themselves easily to consensus. The language chosen by those in power, as Khan warns, rarely fades into the ether; it lingers, sometimes picks up adherents, and occasionally opens the gate for prejudice to slip in behind it.Whether this feud soon cools seems unlikely. In an era where the definition of success for a city, or a leader, is bitterly contested, expect more public skirmishes—more declarations, more defensive postures, and, inevitably, further debate about who gets to own the narrative. For now, at least, neither Khan nor Trump seems willing to yield any ground.