Donald Trump has revived his long-running feud with Sadiq Khan, launching a fresh and scathing attack on the London mayor and branding him “horrible, vicious, disgusting.” The former US president’s remarks, made as he seeks to maintain his influence on the political stage, mark the latest escalation in a years-long war of words between the two men. Their clash, which first erupted over issues ranging from terrorism to crime and immigration, now threatens to further strain transatlantic political discourse as Trump once again turns his ire on one of the UK’s most prominent elected officials.
Trump escalates personal attacks on Sadiq Khan as long running feud resurfaces
Donald Trump has once again turned his attention to London’s mayor, unleashing a fresh barrage of insults that mark a sharp escalation in their years-long war of words. Branding Sadiq Khan “horrible,” “vicious,” and “disgusting,” the former US president used recent interviews and social media posts to portray the Labor politician as emblematic of what he calls the “decline” of Western cities. The renewed criticism appears timed to coincide with Trump’s broader campaign narrative on crime, immigration and national security, in which London is frequently invoked as a cautionary tale. Allies of the former president privately concede that picking a fight with a prominent European liberal figure also plays well with parts of his base, particularly on platforms where combative soundbites travel faster than policy detail.
Khan, who has previously accused Trump of amplifying division, has used the latest outburst to underline what he says is a stark contrast in values between the two men. City Hall officials point to falling serious youth violence, major infrastructure investment and London’s post-pandemic recovery as evidence that the mayor’s record belies Trump’s rhetoric. In the background, strategists on both sides are keenly aware that the feud serves as a proxy clash over competing visions of urban, multicultural governance versus nationalist, populist politics. Key flashpoints in their ongoing dispute include:
- Security and terrorism: Clashes over London’s response to extremist attacks.
- Crime statistics: Duelling claims about safety and policing in the capital.
- Migration and diversity: London as a symbol of open, multicultural identity versus Trump’s hardline stance.
- Social media rhetoric: Highly charged posts fuelling transatlantic political culture wars.
| Year | Trigger | Trump’s Line | Khan’s Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | London election | Questions mayor’s stance on extremism | Accuses Trump of ignorance |
| 2017 | Terror attacks | Mocks mayor’s reassurance message | Warns of Trump’s “divisive” politics |
| 2019 | UK state visit | Labels Khan a “stone-cold loser” | Compares Trump’s language to far right |
| 2024 | US campaign season | Calls Khan “horrible, vicious, disgusting” | Frames row as a values clash |
Impact of the renewed war of words on UK US relations and London’s political landscape
The renewed barrage of insults from Washington threatens to complicate an already delicate diplomatic balance between the UK and US.While official channels in both capitals are likely to stress the resilience of the “special relationship,” the personal nature of the attack on London’s mayor drags city-level politics into the realm of international spectacle. Downing Street faces a familiar dilemma: whether to publicly rebuke a key US figure and risk friction, or to remain muted and endure domestic criticism for appearing to appease a volatile ally. Behind the scenes, diplomats and advisers will be working to firewall core security and trade cooperation from the turbulence of personality-driven politics.
In London, the clash reverberates through a political landscape already defined by culture wars and polarisation. Khan’s supporters see the confrontation as proof that he embodies a cosmopolitan, progressive London at odds with Trump-style populism, while his opponents seize on the row to question his leadership and international standing. The episode is likely to influence local narratives around identity, policing and global image, particularly as national parties gauge how association with the mayor-or with his loudest critic-plays with voters.
- Diplomatic strain: UK officials attempt to separate personal attacks from state-to-state ties.
- Domestic positioning: Parties in Westminster use the spat to sharpen electoral messaging.
- Global optics: London’s reputation as an open, diverse city is thrust back into the spotlight.
| Stakeholder | Key Concern | Likely Response |
|---|---|---|
| UK Government | Avoiding rift with US | Cautious, measured language |
| London Mayor’s Office | Defending city’s image | Robust public rebuttals |
| US Governance | Managing Trump fallout | Downplaying personal feud |
| Opposition Parties | Gaining political leverage | Framing row as leadership test |
Why inflammatory rhetoric matters assessing risks for social cohesion and public discourse
Language as loaded as “horrible, vicious, disgusting” does more than capture headlines; it subtly redraws the boundaries of what is acceptable in public conversation. When high-profile figures lean on personal insults rather than policy arguments, they help normalize a style of politics where character assassination crowds out evidence, and where complex issues are flattened into moral battles of “us” versus “them.” Over time, this can deepen social divides and make it harder for communities to rally around shared facts or common goals. It also feeds an attention economy that rewards outrage over nuance, ensuring that the most incendiary soundbite often drowns out quieter, more constructive voices.
Assessing the risks means looking beyond the personalities involved to the broader ecosystem of social cohesion and democratic discourse. Inflammatory rhetoric directed at elected city leaders can influence how their constituents are perceived, how minority communities feel about their safety, and how willing citizens are to trust institutions at all. Patterns of speech matter:
- Delegitimising opponents weakens respect for democratic mandates.
- Dehumanising labels can embolden harassment and offline hostility.
- Simplistic blame obscures systemic problems and real policy choices.
| Rhetorical Style | Short-Term Effect | Long-Term Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Personal insults | Viral clips, media buzz | Erosion of mutual respect |
| Us-vs-them framing | Rallied base | Polarised communities |
| Policy-focused debate | Less spectacle | Stronger, shared solutions |
Recommendations for leaders and media on de escalating political conflict and promoting accountability
Public debate does not have to mirror the most inflammatory voices in the room. Political figures and newsrooms can shift the temperature by refusing to reward spectacle over substance. Leaders who disagree sharply can still signal respect for democratic norms by avoiding personalised insults and instead challenging policies, data and decisions. Media outlets, for their part, can resist turning every barbed comment into a headline by foregrounding context and consequences, not just the most quotable provocation. Some simple but powerful practices include:
- Reframing coverage around impact on citizens rather than personal animosity between rivals.
- Setting clear standards that rule out language dehumanising opponents or entire communities.
- Inviting diverse, credible voices who can critique power without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
- Challenging falsehoods in real time while avoiding performative outrage that simply fuels the cycle.
| Actor | De-escalation Step | Accountability Tool |
|---|---|---|
| Political leaders | Model fact-based criticism | Public codes of conduct |
| News editors | Downplay insult-driven stories | Clear corrections |
| Opinion writers | Focus on policy stakes | Evidence-linked commentary |
De-escalation does not mean softening scrutiny; it means applying it more rigorously and fairly. Leaders can commit to regular, unscripted questioning from autonomous journalists and fact-checkers, while media organisations can build open databases of verified claims so that audiences can track patterns of distortion or abuse over time. Together, they can promote a political culture where inflammatory language is treated as a warning sign, not a ratings chance, and where those who cross agreed lines face concrete, visible consequences such as loss of committee roles, reduced airtime or on-the-record editorial rebukes. In a climate where rhetoric can quickly spill into real-world harm, choosing precision over provocation becomes a core test of leadership and editorial responsibility.
Key Takeaways
As Trump ramps up his rhetoric and Khan responds in kind, their long‑running feud continues to serve as a revealing proxy for broader political and cultural divides on both sides of the Atlantic. With a UK general election on the horizon and a U.S. presidential race already reshaping America’s political landscape, their war of words is highly likely to resonate far beyond City Hall or Mar‑a‑Lago.
Whether this latest clash amounts to anything more than political theater remains to be seen.But as both men seek to energise their respective bases and define their opponents in stark terms, the dispute underscores how personality-driven conflicts now frequently enough stand in for deeper debates over identity, security and national direction. For voters in London, Washington and beyond, the Khan-Trump spat is less a sideshow than a reminder of how polarised – and intertwined – modern politics has become.
