Why are 2 Muslim mayors in London and New York facing harsh attacks from Trump and others?

London: Sadiq Khan and Zohran Mamdani occupy similar positions at first glance: both Muslims elected to lead major Western cities with diverse populations and complex challenges. Khan, a former human rights lawyer, became mayor of London in 2016 and has since been re-elected twice. Mamdani, born in Uganda and raised in New York, channelled progressive energy into his candidacy and emerged victorious in New York’s mayoral primary. Yet their paths diverge in style and context. Khan represents the centre-left Labour tradition in the UK, while Mamdani stands on the left flank of the Democratic Party as a democratic socialist. Their political environments, powers of office and electoral dynamics differ significantly, but so do the attacks they face, rooted as much in identity as in policy. Islamophobia and Identity as Political Weapons For both mayors the question of faith isn’t secondary, it is front-and-centre. Sadiq Khan has publicly said that as a proud Brit, Londoner and Muslim, he feels a responsibility to challenge myths and stereotypes about Islam. Meanwhile, Mamdani has been repeatedly targeted by Trump and other critics with claims that he is here illegally, is a jihadist sympathiser or will impose Islamic law on New York. Such rhetoric feeds a broader pattern where Muslims in visible leadership positions become targets of fear-based politics and identity-based smears. Khan said of the attacks: “If you’re a nativist, populist politician, we are the antithesis of all you stand for.” Pakistan’s Lie Exposed In 4K: President Murmu Flies In Rafale; Poses With Female IAF Pilot The Strategic Clash with Trump Donald Trump has made both men a political target. In New York Mamdani drew direct fire from the former president who called him a “100 % Communist lunatic” after his primary victory. He also threatened to withhold federal funds if Mamdani became mayor, and raised questions about his citizenship. For Khan, Trump’s attacks stretch back years. At the UN and in public statements Trump accused Khan of being a terrible mayor and claimed London was heading toward Islamic law. UK political leaders rejected those comments as “nonsense”. Khan responded by calling Trump racist, sexist, misogynistic and Islamophobic. In both cases the feud with Trump serves as amplification of political divides: urban progressive capitals versus populist nationalist rhetoric; multicultural governance versus identity-based backlash. What It Means for Urban Leadership and Representation The stories of Khan and Mamdani highlight important themes in modern politics: the rise of Muslim leaders in Western democracies, the backlash they face, and the intersection of identity and policy in public office. While their policy agendas differ, Khan focusing on transport, air quality and London’s global role; Mamdani running on affordable housing, free child-care, free buses and cost-of-living relief, the scrutiny they attract often centres less on what they propose and more on who they are. The implications are profound: how cities handle race, religion, immigration and identity will shape governance for decades. And when leaders stand for inclusive urban futures in cities that represent hope over fear, they become targets for those who fear change. Pakistan’s Attack Before Ceasefire Talks: Tensions Rise Again in Kandahar, Afghanistan Challenges Ahead for Both Mayors Though Khan has three election wins behind him, he still wrestles with issues of housing affordability, transit fares and crime, areas where mayoral power is limited by broader governance structures. Analysts say Mamdani faces a steeper climb: winning the election is one thing, delivering results in one of the most complex cities in the world is another. The path for Muslim mayors in major cities remains fraught. But for Khan and Mamdani, leading with faith and identity seems inseparable from the governance they offer. As Khan put it: “London is liberal, multicultural, progressive, and also successful.” Will their leadership turn the tide on identity-based attacks, or will they simply become battlegrounds in a wider culture war?