On December 25, 2025, Donald Trump, with the Nigerian government’s approval, ordered the launch of U.S. military airstrikes from the Gulf of Guinea to target the alleged camp of the militant Islamist State group in Nigeria. After the attack, he proudly boasted on Truth Social that “the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!”
These attacks were not solely premeditated by President Trump. The U.S. military operation carried out in Sokoto State was a consequence of months of lobbying and growing allegations by U.S. Christian evangelical groups and senior Republicans that Christians were being systematically and discriminately killed in widespread violence by Islamist terrorist groups.
The Republican Senator, Ted Cruz, took it one step further to introduce a bill to sanction Nigerian officials whom he accused of “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians by Islamist jihadists.”
Right-wing U.S. lawmakers and Christian lobbying organizations have grossly simplified a politically complex and nuanced issue into one that fits their rigid “war on terror” objective. By classifying the complex issues plaguing Nigeria’s political system as one that is strictly a moral defiance on the Islamist side, the United States government has eradicated all avenues for addressing the structural and institutional failures that allow this violence and instability to persist.
The U.S. misconstrued allegations come amid recent data showcasing more than 8,000 civilian deaths in Nigeria — Christian and Muslim alike — in 2025 alone. Years of monitoring the political instability and Islamist terrorist attacks by groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria have cultivated a nationally agreed-upon consensus that the widespread violence inflicted by these extremist groups indiscriminately harms and kills both Christians and Muslims. This is evident in that, even after the Christmas Day attack on a farming community in Jabo, another deadly gunmen attack in Kwara state killed more than 160 people, predominantly Muslims, in Woro village. Not surprisingly, according to the New York Times, White House officials refused to respond to questions about the targeting of Muslims.
The U.S. tends to present political conflicts in the Global South as simple dichotomies (e.g., capitalism vs. communism, Muslims vs. Christians), ignoring their complexity. Diagnosing intent risks predetermining outcomes and villainizing the “other” — in this case, Muslims — thereby perpetuating conflict, destabilizing regions, and fueling civil unrest and distrust in the government.
Such a binary narrative similarly hampers grassroots efforts to foster unity between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. By demonizing Muslims, these narratives entrench ethnic cleavages, undermining local work aimed at maintaining order and cooperation in communities where both religions live together.
Moreover, there seems to be mass historical amnesia harboring among Nigerian citizens, as a good amount of them praised the U.S. airstrikes and are further inviting U.S. military intervention as a precipice for long-term peace and stability. The ideology is alarming and raises various points of contention as Nigerians and Americans fail to remember how preceding U.S. military interventions in the Global South ONLY leads to further socioeconomic and political deterioration in the region.
The U.S. military intervention infringes on Nigeria’s sovereignty, without aiding in restoring institutions and systems that build on and strengthen the nation’s sovereign status. Extreme violence fought with extreme violence cannot breed peace or stability. This is clearly evident when we examine how U.S. military interventions in countries such as Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among others, only further destabilizes economies and drastically diminishes the livelihood of civilians. Nigeria will NOT be any different. Thinking otherwise will only add Nigeria to the long list of countries in the Global South that fell prey to one of many failed U.S. military interventions.
More importantly, painting the Nigerian political instability as solely a “Christian Genocide” removes all fault and accountability on the Nigerian government’s role in abetting a nation deliberately ridiculed in poverty, uncertainty, unemployment, and mass insecurity. With the inception of Tinubu’s presidency, the Nigerian government has proven that its first and foremost responsibility is to protect its crude oil and petroleum wealth. The Nigerian government’s swift approval of U.S. airstrikes so close to the Jabo Village in Sokoto proves this. There were no deliberative measures carried out in providing any sort of protection to the community prior to the U.S. airstrikes, elucidating how Nigerian citizens are second-place in their list of priorities.
The liberation and long-term security of Nigerian citizens cannot be achieved through foreign military interventions. Creating arbitrary divides based on religion only breeds animosity and hate between Nigerians, when we should be collectively working together to demand stronger institutions and better, more competent leaders for our country. The U.S. brute military force will not save Nigeria. Nigerians are the sole actors responsible for taking on that task. Transformative, substantial change can only be realized when we, as Nigerian citizens, collectively decide that we have had enough of our institutional failings and the government’s continued apathy towards our well-being.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
