Trump Excludes London Mayor Sadiq Khan from Royal Banquet Amid Ongoing Feud

Trump’s State Visit Overshadowed by Personal Feud

During his state visit to the United Kingdom, US President Donald Trump reignited tensions with London Mayor Sadiq Khan, confirming that he specifically requested Khan not be invited to the royal banquet. Trump remarked, “I didn’t want him there, I asked for him not to be there, I don’t want that,” in a pointed reference to their long-running public dispute. While Khan did not attend the event, Trump went further by describing the London mayor as “among the worst mayors in the world” and a “disaster” on immigration.

The comments sparked immediate reactions in London and across the Atlantic, further cementing a feud that has repeatedly flared since Trump first assumed the presidency. Khan's allies dismissed the remarks, emphasizing that London remains one of the world’s most influential cities, enjoying relatively higher safety metrics compared to several major US metropolitan areas.

Background of the Trump-Khan Rivalry

The strained relationship between Trump and Khan dates back to 2016, when Khan became the first Muslim mayor of London. In the years that followed, disputes intensified over issues ranging from terrorism to immigration policy. Trump often used Khan as a touchpoint in criticizing European migration approaches, despite the mayor not holding authority over immigration matters, which are controlled by the UK’s central government.

Khan, for his part, has openly criticized Trump’s rhetoric, particularly regarding travel bans on citizens from Muslim-majority countries and the former president’s stance on international relations. These clashes have frequently been carried out in public view, often on social media, where both figures took pointed swipes at one another.

For many observers, Trump’s targeted exclusion of Khan from the royal banquet was seen as a symbolic gesture, transforming a state event meant to celebrate diplomatic ties into the latest chapter of a personal feud.

The Royal Banquet and Its Diplomatic Importance

The royal banquet, hosted by the monarch, is traditionally a highlight of any state visit, symbolizing goodwill between the visiting nation and the United Kingdom. For decades, it has served as an opportunity to reinforce alliances, showcase cultural exchange, and strengthen economic and diplomatic partnerships.

Banquets of this kind typically include senior political figures, cultural leaders, business executives, and representatives of civic life. London’s mayor often holds a ceremonial role at such events, standing as a representative of the capital’s diversity and global influence. Khan’s absence, therefore, was widely noted, not just for personal reasons but also for what it suggested about the tone of the visit.

Historians of US-UK relations point to past state visits, such as those of President John F. Kennedy in 1961 and President Barack Obama in 2011, where the emphasis rested firmly on unity, symbolism, and shared values. Trump’s decision to overtly politicize attendance lists represented a sharp departure from the norms of state diplomacy.

Economic and Political Implications for London

London has long positioned itself as a global capital not only of culture but also of finance, trade, and diplomacy. Khan’s supporters highlighted the city’s continued strength on the world stage in response to Trump’s pointed criticisms.

London serves as a major hub for international banking and investment, accounting for a significant portion of the United Kingdom’s overall GDP. Even amid challenges such as Brexit, the city has maintained its place as a magnet for global capital, talent, and tourism. Critics of Trump’s remarks argued that comparing crime or immigration challenges in London to many major US cities reveals a more nuanced picture.

For example, while London has faced spikes in knife-related violence in recent years, it still records dramatically lower homicide rates than cities like New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles. Supporters of Khan stressed that London’s multicultural identity, infrastructure, and international reach highlight its broader resilience in the face of global challenges.

A Comparison with US Cities

Trump’s labeling of Khan as a “disaster” on immigration was rejected by experts and city officials, who noted that London, though diverse and home to over 8.5 million residents, has maintained high integration indicators over decades of mass migration. The city’s foreign-born population is closely linked with its economic dynamism, supplying key workers across financial services, healthcare, education, and technology.

Comparing London to key US cities illustrates a more complex reality:

• New York continues to face deep challenges related to housing affordability and rising crime rates, though it remains a financial powerhouse.
• Chicago, often cited by Trump in discussions about urban violence, experiences homicide rates more than four times higher than London’s.
• Los Angeles, a city with an equally diverse migration history, also grapples with homelessness and inequality on a scale dwarfing many European capitals.

These comparisons underscore that urban struggles in both the UK and the US cannot be attributed to the leadership of a single mayor but stem from entrenched demographic, economic, and social factors.

Historical Context of US-UK Mayoral Relations

In the past, relationships between American presidents and London mayors rarely featured ins. The focus was usually on strengthening the "special relationship" between the two nations, bolstered by shared history, NATO ties, and close intelligence cooperation.

Traditionally, the mayor of London has been involved in welcoming world leaders, showcasing the capital’s status as a global hub. When Obama visited the UK, his warm interactions with then-Mayor Boris Johnson underscored the ceremonial role mayors play in such occasions. By contrast, the Trump-Khan conflict marks the first instance in modern history where a US president so openly targeted a London mayor during a state visit.

Reactions in Britain and Abroad

Public reaction in Britain was divided. Some criticized Trump’s remarks as inappropriate for a visiting head of state, arguing that personal disputes have no place in globally significant events like royal banquets. Others, including some of Trump’s supporters within the UK, agreed with his critiques of Khan, particularly in relation to handling crime in the capital.

Internationally, the spectacle drew widespread attention. Analysts noted that the optics of excluding London’s mayor risked overshadowing the substantive diplomatic goals of the state visit, including discussions on trade, defense, and global security cooperation. For the global audience, the feud suggested a shift in priorities away from broader alliances toward individualized disputes.

The Future of Trump-Khan Relations

The durability of the Trump-Khan feud illustrates broader challenges in cross-Atlantic relations, where personalities have increasingly played a role in shaping major diplomatic narratives. While Trump’s time in office underscored his combative, personal style of politics, Khan has consistently positioned himself as a voice for cosmopolitanism and diversity, setting the stage for inevitable clashes.

Whether this feud will be remembered as a footnote in the history of US-UK relations or as a defining symbol of the Trump era remains to be seen. Historians generally argue that while diplomatic tensions have flared in the past, such as disputes over Iraq or trade policy, open personal animosities rarely dominated the symbolism of state visits.

A Diplomatic Visit Redefined by Rivalry

Ultimately, Trump’s exclusion of Khan from the royal banquet illustrates the degree to which personal rivalries have reshaped global diplomacy. A tradition intended to highlight unity, shared culture, and mutual respect instead became defined by absence, exclusion, and conflict.

As the United Kingdom and United States continue to navigate shifting global landscapes — including questions of trade, defense, and international cooperation — the episode stands as a vivid reminder of how personal tensions can overshadow strategic priorities.

For many in both countries, the image of a royal banquet without London’s mayor will serve not only as a symbol of political division but also as a reflection of how personal grievances can redefine even the most ceremonial acts of diplomacy.