“London Wants to Go to Sharia Law”: Trump’s Claim and Its Reactions

“London Wants to Go to Sharia Law”: Trump’s Claim and Its Reactions

In a dramatic turn at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump leveled a startling accusation: that London, under its mayor Sadiq Khan, was veering toward implementing Sharia law. His exact words:

“I look at London, where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor, and it’s been changed, it’s been so changed. Now they want to go to Sharia law. But you are in a different country, you can’t do that.”

The claim immediately drew sharp backlash from political leaders in the UK, media fact‑checkers, and civil society voices. But it also taps into deeper fault lines around immigration, identity, Islamophobia, and political rhetoric. Below, we unpack the claim, examine its veracity, explore its motives, and consider its broader implications.

What Is Sharia Law — And Can It Be “Imported”?

Before evaluating Trump’s statement, one must clarify what Sharia law means — because the term is often misused or oversimplified.

• Definition & scope: Sharia (Islamic law) is a broad system of principles derived from the Quran, Hadith (sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad), consensus (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas). It covers a range of domains — worship, personal morality, family law, inheritance, contracts, criminal punishments in some interpretations, etc.

• Variability & implementation: In practice, “Sharia law” is not monolithic. Some Muslim-majority countries implement it in part (e.g. family law) but retain secular legal codes for criminal justice. Others adopt a more comprehensive system (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia).

• In non‑Muslim countries: In many Western countries with Muslim minorities (like the UK), so-called “Sharia councils” or arbitration panels sometimes handle private disputes (marriage, divorce, inheritance) with consent of parties. But these typically operate under the umbrella of national civil law; their decisions are enforceable only insofar as they do not conflict with the country’s statutory law. They lack legal force over non‑consenting parties or in criminal matters.

Thus, for London (or any part of the UK) to “go to Sharia law” in the sense of replacing or overriding the British legal system would require radical institutional changes. There is no evidence that London or the UK government has any credible plan or proposal to do that. Fact-checkers and media outlets have flagged that Trump’s claim is unsubstantiated. 

The Political Context: Trump vs. Khan (and Beyond)

To understand why Trump made this assertion, we must situate it in a longer-running personal and rhetorical conflict, and a broader political strategy.

A Long-Standing Grudge

Trump and Sadiq Khan have clashed for years. In 2015, when Trump proposed a travel ban on Muslims entering the U.S., Khan (then a parliamentary MP) called it “divisive and wrong.”  Over the years, Trump has repeatedly criticized crime in London and targeted Khan as a “terrible mayor.” The claim of “going to Sharia law” is the latest in a series of rhetorical barbs directed at Khan.

This suggests that Trump’s language is not merely spontaneous but likely part of a pattern: using inflammatory, conspiratorial accusations to provoke media attention, reinforce a narrative of “civilizational threat,” and mobilize:

• his base in the U.S. around themes of immigration and cultural identity;

• public opinion abroad (by stoking divisions in the UK).

Rhetoric of “Invasion” and Cultural Threat

Trump’s speech at the UN was not limited to London; he launched a sweeping attack on European immigration policies, claiming that Europe was being “invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before.”  He also argued that open borders and “political correctness” were eroding Western heritage and sovereignty.  The Sharia claim fits into this framework: it portrays Muslim presence not just as cultural diversity, but as a creeping juridical takeover.

This kind of rhetoric is not new. In the U.S. and Europe, far-right and populist actors have used warnings about “Sharia takeover” to generate fear, stigmatize Muslims, and frame immigration restriction as protection of civilization. (That is a well-documented phenomenon in political science and studies of Islamophobia.)

Reactions in the UK: Pushback, Denial, and Political Fallout

The response to Trump’s statement was swift and unified across many corners of British politics.

• Sadiq Khan’s office dismissed the claim as “appalling and bigoted” and refused to dignify it with serious response. 

• Labour and government figures condemned it. Health Secretary Wes Streeting insisted: “Sadiq Khan is not trying to impose Sharia law on London. This is a mayor who marches with Pride … stands up for difference.” 

• Parliamentary voices: Cabinet minister Pat McFadden accused Trump of “misreading London” and reaffirmed that British law applies everywhere in the capital. 

• Media and fact-checkers flagged that there is no evidence of any move toward Islamic law in London. 

• Labour MPs demanded that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the government publicly condemn the remarks and summon the U.S. ambassador to respond. 

In short: across the political spectrum, Trump’s assertion was rejected as baseless and inflammatory.

Why Make Such a Claim? Possible Motivations & Effects

Though factually groundless, one can examine likely motives and possible consequences of such rhetoric.

Mobilizing Political Bases & International Messaging

Trump may intend to:

1. Energize his base in the U.S. by promoting narratives of threat from immigration, Islam, “radical Islam,” etc. The Sharia claim is dramatic and visually striking — it draws attention.

2. Signal ideological stances: by casting the confrontation in terms of “civilization,” sovereignty, and cultural identity, it reinforces his broader worldview.

3. Influence global discourse: by bringing this up at the UN, Trump frames Europe (and London in particular) as weak, compromised, or ideologically lost. It pressures European leaders to respond or be seen as passive.

4. Escalate the feud with Khan personally, keeping the rivalry alive.

Effects: Fear, Polarization, and Misinformation

• Stigmatizing Muslims: Assertions that a Western city is converting to Sharia law feed Islamophobic tropes, insinuating that Muslims are disloyal or seeking to subjugate non-Muslims.

• Misinformation reinforcement: Once such a claim circulates, disinformation networks may amplify it (memes, social media, fringe websites).

• Polarized public debate: Even though the claim is baseless, it forces defenders and opponents to debate, distracting from more substantive issues (e.g. crime rates, integration, public services).

• Diplomatic tension: The UK–U.S. relationship may feel strain as British officials respond or push back; summoning ambassadors etc.

London Reality Check: Crime, Integration, and Governance

If one wants to test whether London is undergoing any drift toward normative breakdown or lawlessness, it’s worth reviewing empirical metrics.

• Crime statistics: While crime in London has fluctuated, it is not at collapse. The Metropolitan Police and Office for National Statistics publish data showing trends in violent crime, homicide, and property crime. Critics note that London’s homicide rate, for instance, is often lower than that of many major U.S. cities. 

• Institutional stability: London remains governed by elected officials under British law. Its policing, judiciary, and administrative systems function under national legal frameworks. No credible political actors are advocating abolition of that system.

• Social integration & diversity: London is one of the world’s most diverse cities and has long experience with pluralism, multicultural policies, and debates over immigration, integration, and minority rights. That does not imply legal conversion to religious law.

• Public sentiment & politics: While there are tensions and debates around immigration, housing, policing, and inequality, they play out under secular discourse — not religious takeover.

Thus, the claim of “going to Sharia law” is disconnected from the actual governance and legal reality of London.

Broader Implications: Populism, Islamophobia, and Global Norms

Beyond the immediate flare-up, this incident points to deeper issues in global politics and public discourse.

Populist Strategies & Identity Framing

Many populist movements frame politics as existential cultural struggle — “us vs. them,” “civilization vs. invasion,” “roots vs. foreigners.” Accusations of Sharia takeover become rhetorical devices in that frame. They serve to inflate threats and justify restrictive policies (immigration curbs, surveillance, assimilation demands). Political scientists have documented this in Europe and the U.S.

Islamophobia & the Politics of Fear

The idea that Muslim presence inevitably leads to legal takeover is part of a long writing tradition in Islamophobia. Scholars such as Dar‑Sharīf, Jocelyne Cesari, and John Esposito have traced how such narratives function to dehumanize Muslims, depict them as intrinsically “other,” and rationalize exclusion. The Sharia claim is a contemporary version of that trope.

Erosion of Public Trust

Repeated hyperbole and false claims by prominent figures can erode public trust in political discourse. When allegations are widely debunked but still circulated, cynicism and polarization deepen — people may believe conspiracy narratives or dismiss serious claims because everything seems suspect.

Diplomatic & Transatlantic Repercussions

False claims made on the international stage can strain diplomatic relationships. The U.K. government has to respond, defend its institutions, and navigate public pressure. It may also feed into debates over free speech, social media regulation, and foreign interference in domestic political discourse.

Conclusion & Reflection

Donald Trump’s claim that “London wants to go to Sharia law” during his UN address is bold, provocative, and not supported by facts. It fits within a long pattern of rhetorical strategies targeting Muslim-majority or diverse cities and feeding cultural fears. The backlash from London’s mayor, UK politicians, media, and civil society underscores the weakness of his claim.

Yet, the significance is not merely whether the claim is true or false — it's how it plays in the broader political and cultural landscape. It reveals how religious identity, fear, and symbolism are weaponized in 21st-century populist narratives. It forces London, the UK, and global audiences to reckon with the boundaries of pluralism, the limits of rhetoric, and the resilience of liberal institutions.