The ongoing Trump-Khan feud once again made headlines during the US president’s second state visit to the UK, an event marked by rare pomp and ceremony for a non-royal guest. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One while returning to the US, President Donald Trump claimed that he had “asked that [London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan] not be there” at the state banquet hosted by the King at Windsor Castle.
Trump described Khan as “among the worst mayors in the world” and criticized his governance of London, calling him “a disaster” on both immigration and crime management. “I think the Mayor of London Khan is among the worst mayors in the world, and we have some bad ones,” Trump said. “Crime in London is through the roof. I asked that he not be there. He wanted to be there, as I understand, but I didn’t want him.”
The remarks reignited a feud that has spanned nearly a decade, highlighting not just personal animosity between Trump and Khan, but also broader political and cultural differences between the two leaders.
Did Mayor Khan Expect an Invitation?
Despite Trump’s claims, a source close to Sir Sadiq said the mayor neither sought nor expected an invitation to the state banquet. In response to the president’s comments, the source emphasized that Trump’s approach to politics fosters “fear and division” rather than collaboration.
They added, “London is a global success story – it’s open, dynamic, and safer than major US cities. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons record numbers of Americans are choosing to make London their home.”
This response underscores a fundamental clash of perspectives: while Trump portrays Khan as failing London, supporters argue that the city continues to thrive as a global capital, attracting business, culture, and international residents alike. The episode illustrates that the Trump-Khan feud is as much about differing narratives as it is about personal animosity.
How Did the Trump-Khan Feud Begin?
The roots of the Trump-Khan feud go back to 2015, when Sir Sadiq publicly condemned Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from traveling to the US. The feud escalated a year later when Trump challenged the mayor to an IQ test in a public spat, drawing international attention.
Tensions continued to mount in subsequent years. Trump openly criticized Khan’s response to the London Bridge terror attack in 2017, suggesting that the mayor’s leadership was inadequate in times of crisis. The feud reached a symbolic peak in 2019 during Trump’s first state visit to the UK, when Khan permitted a giant inflatable “Trump baby” blimp to fly over London in protest of the president’s visit.
Throughout this period, Trump repeatedly labeled Khan as “a stone-cold loser” and a “nasty person,” while Khan accused Trump of fueling far-right politics and division. The feud has therefore intertwined political disagreement, public protest, and personal animosity, making it one of the most visible political rivalries involving a US president in recent memory.
What Were the Reactions to the Trump-Khan Feud During the State Visit?
Trump’s second state visit was characterized by elaborate ceremonies and public displays of US-UK friendship. However, the Trump-Khan feud and broader public sentiment ensured that the visit was not without controversy. Thousands of protesters gathered in Parliament Square to demonstrate against Trump’s policies and his presence in the UK.
Security incidents highlighted the intensity of opposition, including the arrest of four men after images of Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were projected onto Windsor Castle ahead of the state banquet. These protests demonstrated that, despite the ceremonial pomp of the visit, domestic and international audiences were watching closely, and public opinion remained sharply divided.
The feud itself played a significant role in shaping the atmosphere around the state visit. Trump’s comments about Mayor Khan, along with historical grievances dating back to 2015, ensured that media coverage of the visit frequently focused on the personal rivalry rather than broader diplomatic objectives. Read another article on the Trump transition team
How Does the Trump-Khan Feud Reflect Broader Political Tensions?
The Trump-Khan feud is not just about individual personalities; it reflects deeper political and cultural divides. On one side, Trump’s confrontational style and focus on immigration, crime, and law-and-order narratives often clash with Khan’s progressive policies and emphasis on multiculturalism, urban safety, and inclusion.
The feud also highlights differences in how leaders approach public diplomacy. While the US president often uses public statements to assert his views and influence perception, Khan’s responses have emphasized London’s status as a safe, vibrant, and globally connected city. This clash of messaging underscores how personal rivalries can intersect with broader political narratives, shaping public perception both domestically and internationally.
Could the Trump-Khan Feud Affect US-UK Relations?
Despite the feud, both governments maintained formal diplomatic appearances during the state visit. Ceremonial events, including the state banquet and meetings with the King, were designed to showcase the enduring alliance between the US and the UK.
Yet, the Trump-Khan feud serves as a reminder that personal politics can intrude on diplomacy. Trump’s decision to exclude Mayor Khan from the banquet demonstrates how personal disagreements and media narratives can impact the optics of international relations. Even in a context designed to signal unity, the feud reminded observers that informal tensions can influence public perception, media coverage, and, potentially, future interactions between the two nations.
What Does the Public Take Away From the Feud?
For the public, the Trump-Khan feud has become a symbolic struggle between competing visions of leadership and governance. On one hand, Trump frames Khan as a failed leader whose policies have allegedly worsened crime and urban management. On the other hand, supporters of Khan argue that London remains a thriving, safe, and globally respected city.
Protests and public commentary surrounding Trump’s visit suggest that the feud resonates far beyond the leaders themselves. It engages citizens in debates about immigration, safety, political rhetoric, and the role of personal rivalries in public governance.
Conclusion: A Feud That Shapes Perception
The Trump-Khan feud illustrates how personal and political conflicts can overshadow even the most carefully orchestrated diplomatic events. From symbolic blimps in London skies to high-profile state banquets, the feud has shaped media coverage, public protests, and international perception.
As Trump and Khan continue to exchange pointed remarks, their rivalry remains a potent reminder that personal disagreements between leaders can influence international relations, public discourse, and even the ceremonial aspects of diplomacy.
Ultimately, the feud is about more than two individuals: it reflects broader cultural and political divides, contrasting leadership styles, and competing narratives of what it means to govern successfully in the modern era.
