Trump’s ‘Sharia’ Accusation Fuels A Widening Global Culture War – OpEd – Eurasia Review

In a high-profile address to the United Nations in late September 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump accused London of “going to Sharia law” and described Mayor Sadiq Khan as “a terrible, terrible mayor.”

Trump also intensified his criticism of New York mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani, portraying him as a radical who would undermine law and order. Both charges suggested that Muslim or progressive leaders were sympathetic to imposing Islamic Sharia law in Western cities. The remarks ignited strong reactions in both the United Kingdom and the United States. They also revived long-standing debates about the use of religion as a political weapon.

What Was Said and When

Trump’s UN speech on 24–25 September 2025 drew global attention. Among foreign policy themes, he inserted a pointed remark: London was “heading toward Sharia law.” His attack on Sadiq Khan followed years of personal hostility, dating back to disputes over Trump’s travel bans and Khan’s criticism of his rhetoric. In U.S. domestic politics, Trump has targeted Zohran Mamdani throughout the 2025 mayoral race, linking him to radical politics and hinting that he posed risks to the cultural character of New York.

Legal and Institutional Reality

The claim that a mayor can impose Sharia law on a Western city collapses under scrutiny. In the United Kingdom, the legal system is rooted in parliamentary sovereignty and secular law. Sharia councils exist informally to mediate family disputes within Muslim communities, but they carry no binding legal force. Civil courts retain full authority. In the United States, constitutional separation of church and state prevents any religious legal code from being adopted as municipal or state law. A New York mayor has no legal capacity to introduce religious law into statutory frameworks. Fact-checkers have consistently found no evidence that Khan or Mamdani has proposed such measures.

Profiles and Policy Records

Sadiq Khan, a two-term mayor of London, is known for transport reforms, housing initiatives and environmental measures. His disputes with Trump are long-standing: during Trump’s presidency, Khan openly criticized the U.S. travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries. Trump responded by questioning Khan’s competence and suitability for office. The “Sharia” claim is the most extreme form of that ongoing feud.

Zohran Mamdani, by contrast, is at the beginning of his citywide political career. The son of Ugandan-Indian immigrants, Mamdani built his platform around affordable housing, transit access, and progressive taxation. His policies are secular, rooted in economic and social issues rather than religious identity. His supporters see him as a new voice for marginalized communities, while opponents cast him as dangerously radical.

Why the Claim Matters Politically

Framing political rivals as sympathetic to Sharia law is not new. It has appeared in American politics since at least the debates over Barack Obama’s candidacy, when conspiracy theories about his religion circulated widely. The tactic functions as a cultural signal: it ties opponents to foreignness, otherness, and an alleged threat to secular freedoms. In Britain, similar accusations have circulated around Muslim politicians, though they rarely gain traction in mainstream discourse.

Trump’s UN platform gave this rhetoric unusual visibility. In an international forum designed for diplomacy, he chose to repeat a claim rooted in domestic identity politics. The effect was to globalize a narrative of cultural fear that resonates with parts of his political base.

Immediate Reactions and Pushback

The political backlash was swift. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer dismissed Trump’s remarks as “nonsense,” emphasizing that British law is secular and not at risk of replacement. Khan rejected the charge, calling it both Islamophobic and an insult to Londoners who value pluralism. In the United States, Mamdani and his allies pointed out that Trump’s statements were unsupported by fact and served only to inflame division. Civil rights groups warned that such rhetoric could endanger Muslim communities by legitimizing suspicion and hostility.

Fact-Checking the Core Claim

Independent verification is straightforward: no proposal exists in London’s City Hall to replace English law with Sharia. Khan’s administration works within national frameworks. Similarly, Mamdani’s published policy documents concern rent, wages, and public services, not religion. The absence of evidence suggests that the allegations are rhetorical rather than factual. This pattern—assertion without substantiation—underscores the political nature of the attack.

Broader Implications

There are several consequences to consider:

• International relations: By targeting the mayor of a major ally’s capital at the UN, Trump risked straining ties with the UK. British officials were compelled to respond publicly, diverting attention from shared diplomatic agendas.
• Domestic polarization: The Sharia accusation deepens divides within U.S. politics. It strengthens Trump’s appeal among voters who prioritize cultural identity, but alienates others who see it as discriminatory.
• Security concerns: Analysts warn that repeatedly linking Muslim leaders to extremism can heighten threats against them. Politicians like Khan and Mamdani already face elevated security risks.
• Media environment: Sensational claims often overshadow substantive policy debate. Coverage of Trump’s statement dominated headlines, while discussion of housing, transportation, and governance receded.

Historical Context

Trump’s clash with Sadiq Khan is not new. As early as 2016, Khan opposed Trump’s proposed Muslim travel ban, sparking a series of hostile exchanges. Trump has repeatedly used Khan as a foil, portraying him as emblematic of failed urban leadership. With Mamdani, the dynamic is different but related: he represents a new generation of progressive leaders whose immigrant background and Muslim identity make them vulnerable to cultural attacks.

The invocation of “Sharia” in both cases fits a larger pattern in Trump’s political style: blending identity-based rhetoric with populist appeals to law and order. It is a language that has proven effective in energizing parts of his electorate.

What Accountability Requires

For democracies to function, accusations must be met with evidence. Responsible responses include:

• demanding policy documents or legislative proposals that substantiate such claims;
• emphasizing constitutional and legal constraints that prevent religious law from overriding secular frameworks;
• steering public debate back to measurable issues of governance.

Fact-checking organizations and mainstream outlets have tried to perform this role, but the repetition of unverified statements in high-visibility forums continues to challenge public understanding.

The allegation that London or New York is moving toward Sharia law under specific elected leaders is unfounded. It has no basis in law, policy, or governance. Yet the claim carries political weight, not because it is true but because it resonates with cultural fears. When voiced on the world stage, such rhetoric risks both domestic cohesion and international goodwill.

The task for media, political leaders, and citizens is to separate fact from fiction. In evaluating candidates for office, the relevant questions are their records, their policies, and the constitutional limits within which they operate. Turning elections into referenda on imagined religious threats undermines democratic accountability. Facts, not fear, should define the contest for leadership in both London and New York.