Trump’s Nigeria Threat: Evangelicals, Empire, and a New Colonial Playbook

The History Behind The Headlines

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

A Threat That Shocked Lagos: Trump Orders Pentagon to Prepare for Nigeria Action

On November 3, 2025, residents of Lagos woke to news that sent shockwaves across Nigeria. President Donald Trump announced he ordered the Pentagon to prepare for potential military action against Africa’s most populous nation (CNN). The threat came with a warning. If Nigeria fails to stop what Trump called the “mass slaughter” of Christians, the United States would go in “guns-a-blazing” to “completely wipe out” Islamic terrorists (Reuters).

The reactions on Lagos streets revealed a divided nation. Some residents welcomed potential American intervention. “When he sends down the soldiers, there’s too much killings in this country. We need help,” one resident told reporters (Africanews). Others saw the threat as an unwarranted intrusion. “Both US and Nigeria have sovereignty and that word exists for a reason,” another resident stated (Africanews).

Trump’s statement did not emerge from a vacuum. On Friday, October 31, he designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” for religious freedom violations (JURIST). He claimed Christianity faces an “existential threat” in Nigeria and that “thousands of Christians are being killed” by radical Islamists (New York Times). Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth quickly responded on social media with “Yes sir,” confirming the Department of War was “preparing for action” (CBS News).

Timeline of Key Events in U.S.-Nigeria Relations: From Independence to Trump’s Military Threat

The Evangelical Push: How a Fox News Segment Sparked a Foreign Policy Crisis

The story behind Trump’s sudden focus on Nigeria reveals the powerful influence of evangelical Christians on American foreign policy. According to CNN sources, Trump watched a Fox News segment about Christian persecution in Nigeria while flying to Florida on October 31 (CNN). Within an hour, he posted his initial statement designating Nigeria as a country of particular concern (CNN).

Behind the scenes, evangelical activists had been working for months. Senator Ted Cruz led the charge in Congress, introducing legislation to designate Nigeria as a violator of religious freedom (Cruz Senate). Nina Shea from the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom coordinated a coalition of over 30 advocacy groups that sent a letter to the administration on October 15 (The Hill).

The campaign gained unexpected celebrity support. Rapper Nicki Minaj thanked Trump on social media, writing that his stance made her “feel a deep sense of gratitude” (Fox News). UN Ambassador Mike Waltz invited Minaj to discuss the issue during her visit to New York City (The Hill).

White evangelicals formed the bedrock of Trump’s support, with over 80 percent voting for him in 2024 (Newsweek). Trump has consistently delivered for this base, not just domestically but in foreign policy. His administration moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, imposed sanctions on Turkey for detaining an American pastor, and quickly declared ISIS persecution of Christians a “genocide” (Politico).

What the Data Really Shows: A Crisis More Complex Than Genocide Claims

Trump and Senator Cruz paint a picture of systematic Christian genocide in Nigeria. Cruz claims 52,000 Christians have been killed since 2009 and 20,000 churches destroyed (Cruz Senate). Open Doors, an evangelical watchdog group, reported that nearly 70 percent of Christians killed for their faith worldwide in 2024 were in Nigeria (Fox News).

However, experts who study Nigeria’s conflict paint a more nuanced picture. Data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project revealed that of 1,923 attacks on civilians in Nigeria during their reporting period, only 50 were targeted based on religion (Wikipedia). Ladd Serwat, a senior Africa analyst at ACLED, stated that claims of 100,000 Christians killed since 2009 are not supported by data (Wikipedia).

The violence in Nigeria stems from multiple overlapping conflicts. Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province terrorize the northeast. Bandit groups kidnap and kill across the northwest. Farmer-herder conflicts over scarce water and land resources plague the Middle Belt. Ethnic and communal violence erupts in various regions (CNN).

Crucially, Muslims die in greater numbers than Christians in Nigeria’s conflicts. Most victims of Boko Haram have been Muslims, not Christians, because the insurgency takes place in predominantly Muslim areas (Council on Foreign Relations). In Zamfara state, where violence is particularly severe, both herders and farmers are mostly Muslim and mostly Fulani (Council on Foreign Relations).

By The Numbers: The Scale of Nigeria’s Security Crisis

The Staggering Human Cost: Numbers That Tell a Devastating Story

The National Bureau of Statistics released shocking data in December 2024. Between May 2023 and April 2024, Nigeria recorded 614,937 deaths from insecurity nationwide (Anadolu Agency). The banditry-ravaged northwest saw 206,030 deaths, followed by the northeast with 188,992 (Anadolu Agency).

During the same period, 2,235,954 Nigerians were kidnapped (Anadolu Agency). Families paid a staggering $1.4 billion in ransom (Anadolu Agency). These numbers illustrate a nation in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe that affects all citizens regardless of faith.

The crisis extends beyond immediate violence. An assessment led by Nigeria’s government projected 33.1 million people will face acute food insecurity in 2025 (World Food Programme). This represents an alarming increase of seven million people from the previous year, driven by economic hardship, record inflation, climate change effects, and persistent violence (World Food Programme).

Approximately 5.4 million children and nearly 800,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women face acute malnutrition (World Food Programme). Among these, 1.8 million children could face severe acute malnutrition requiring critical treatment (World Food Programme). These are the real victims of Nigeria’s multifaceted crisis, not pawns in a religious narrative.

Boko Haram’s Bloody Rise: The Historical Roots of Terror

To understand Nigeria’s current crisis requires examining history. The roots of Boko Haram lie in the Islamic history of northern Nigeria, where for 800 years powerful sultanates constituted high Muslim civilizations (West Point CTC). The jihad of Shehu Usuman Dan Fodio from 1802 to 1812 created a unified caliphate stretching across northern Nigeria (West Point CTC).

British colonizers conquered this caliphate in 1905. In 1960, Muslim northern Nigeria was federated with largely Christian southern Nigeria at independence (West Point CTC). This forced union of different regions with distinct histories created lasting tensions.

Mohammed Yusuf founded Boko Haram in 2002 in Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state (Wikipedia). The group established a religious complex and school that attracted poor Muslim families across Nigeria and neighboring countries (Wikipedia). By denouncing police and state corruption, Yusuf attracted followers from unemployed youth (Wikipedia).

The turning point came in July 2009 when Nigerian security forces assaulted Yusuf’s compound and judicially murdered him on video (West Point CTC). Hundreds of members died with him (West Point CTC). The group learned to avoid having an obvious base and transformed into a deadly insurgency.

Under Abubakar Shekau’s leadership from 2009 until his death in 2021, Boko Haram demonstrated growing operational capabilities (National Counterterrorism Center). The group increasingly used improvised explosive devices, vehicle bombs, and female suicide attacks (National Counterterrorism Center). In August 2011, Boko Haram conducted its first attack on a Western interest, bombing UN headquarters in Abuja and killing at least 23 people (National Counterterrorism Center).

The 2014 kidnapping of 276 mostly Christian schoolgirls from Chibok brought international attention. However, the majority of Boko Haram’s victims have always been Muslims deemed apostates or insufficiently devout (Council on Foreign Relations). The group split in 2016 partly because of its wide definition of apostasy and killing of so many Muslims (Council on Foreign Relations).

Understanding Nigeria’s Complex Security Crisis: Multiple Drivers Beyond Religious Conflict

Land, Water, and Blood: The Farmer-Herder Conflict That Defies Religious Narratives

While Boko Haram dominates headlines, another conflict kills more Nigerians. The farmer-herder clashes in Nigeria predate the colonial era, with violent encounters dating back to 1923 (ACCORD). In pre-colonial times, farmers and herders enjoyed symbiotic relationships characterized by exchange of goods and services (Building Blocks for Peace).

Climate change forced this transformation. Drought and desertification in the north drove pastoralist herdsmen to seek grazing lands further south (United Nations). This resulted in competition over scarce resources (United Nations). The expansion of cultivated lands by farmers, extensive sedentarization, burning of rangelands, and overgrazing fueled clashes (ACCORD).

The violence escalated dramatically in 2014 (ACCORD). Early 2016 saw the spread to farming communities in many states, leading to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths (ACCORD). While many Fulani herders are Muslim and many farmers in the Middle Belt are Christian, this is fundamentally a resource conflict with religious dimensions, not a religious conflict (Council on Foreign Relations).

Economic factors compound the crisis. While herders often enjoy political and financial favors from the federal government, farmers grapple with economic vulnerabilities and limited market access (ACCORD). Business elites engaged in the cattle industry allegedly supply arms to herdsmen, sometimes in collusion with security agencies (ACCORD).

Religious leaders play contradictory roles. Some promote reconciliation and peacebuilding. Others perpetuate hatred by justifying violence to promote religious hegemony (ACCORD). This religious polarization significantly impacts efforts at reconciliation (ACCORD).

America’s African Adventures: A History of Failed Interventions

Trump’s threat of military action ignores a troubling history. The United States has intervened militarily in Africa multiple times with disastrous results. The 1992-1993 Somalia intervention offers critical lessons (International Socialist Review).

President George H.W. Bush initiated “Operation Restore Hope” in Somalia, claiming to provide humanitarian relief. President Bill Clinton continued the mission, declaring the U.S. military a “force for good” (International Socialist Review). The intervention was intended to bury the Vietnam War syndrome that hamstrung America’s ability to intervene globally (International Socialist Review).

The reality proved far different. U.S. troops carried out increasingly aggressive assaults. In July 1993, a missile attack by U.S. helicopters killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates attempting to broker a settlement (International Socialist Review). U.S. officials estimated casualties of 6,000 to 10,000 Somalis in summer 1993 alone, two-thirds of them women and children (International Socialist Review).

The October 1993 Battle of Mogadishu killed 18 American soldiers and approximately 1,000 Somalis (International Socialist Review). Millions of ordinary Somalis paid the price with years of devastation in one of the most war-torn regions (International Socialist Review). Somalia remains unstable today, with U.S. forces still conducting operations there (Wikipedia).

The 2011 Libya intervention provides another cautionary tale. The U.S. and NATO launched an extensive bombardment campaign to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi (Wikipedia). Gaddafi was overthrown and killed, but Libya descended into chaos (Wikipedia). The intervention resulted in the 2012 Benghazi attack and a failed state that became a breeding ground for extremism (Wikipedia).

U.S. military operations in Africa expanded dramatically with the 2007 creation of Africa Command, known as AFRICOM (AFRICOM). AFRICOM has conducted operations in numerous countries with mixed results at best (Wikipedia). As of 2023, there have been at least 315 confirmed drone strikes from AFRICOM operations in Somalia, with estimates of at least 1,668 deaths and at least 33 civilians killed (Wikipedia).

Colonial Legacies and Neocolonial Patterns: Why Africans Distrust Western Intervention

Trump’s threat arrives against a backdrop of deep African skepticism toward Western military intervention. This distrust has historical roots. The United States historically failed to support African independence movements in the 1960s, often labeling independence leaders as communists (FAOA Journal).

Denied U.S. backing, leaders like Patrice Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Agostinho Neto of Angola turned to communist allies (FAOA Journal). The United States either sided with colonial powers or remained neutral, leaving a legacy of distrust (FAOA Journal). South Africans still remember initial U.S. support for the apartheid regime (FAOA Journal).

During the Cold War, U.S. relations with Africa revolved around anti-communist politics (Cornell University Press). Whether an African leader was “on our side” was all that mattered, explaining continued U.S. support for autocrats like Mobutu Sese Seko, Samuel Doe, and Daniel Arap Moi (Cornell University Press).

The United States relationship with Nigeria followed this pattern. The U.S. established diplomatic relations with Nigeria in 1960 following independence from the United Kingdom (U.S. Embassy Nigeria). From 1966 to 1999, Nigeria experienced a series of military coups (U.S. Embassy Nigeria). The period of General Sani Abacha’s regime from 1993 to 1998 marked the lowest point in Nigeria-U.S. relations (Igwebuike Research Institute).

The exceedingly repressive nature of the Abacha regime, its corruption, and human rights abuses earned Nigeria pariah status (Igwebuike Research Institute). When Abacha sentenced environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists to death in 1995, the United States responded with sanctions (Igwebuike Research Institute). The U.S. reduced diplomatic staff, expelled Nigeria’s military attaché in Washington, and curtailed direct commercial flights (Igwebuike Research Institute).

Relations improved after Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999 under President Olusegun Obasanjo (U.S. Embassy Nigeria). However, the legacy of colonialism and neocolonialism shapes how Africans view Western intervention. The recent surge of coups in francophone African countries reflects rejection of Western interference, particularly French neocolonial practices (FAOA Journal). U.S. alignment with France has damaged American credibility (FAOA Journal).

Nigeria’s Response: Sovereignty Versus American Pressure

Nigerian officials responded forcefully to Trump’s threats. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu pushed back, stating that characterizing Nigeria as religiously intolerant “does not reflect the national reality” (Africanews). “Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so,” Tinubu said (Africanews).

Presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga expressed shock to CNN. “We are astonished that President Trump is contemplating an invasion of our nation,” he stated (CNN). Another advisor, Daniel Bwala, challenged Trump’s depiction that Christians were being specifically targeted but acknowledged valuing the president’s concern regarding security (Washington Post).

Bwala indicated Nigeria’s government interprets Trump’s threats as a negotiation strategy (Washington Post). Nigeria would appreciate enhanced intelligence collaboration from the U.S. (Washington Post). “The struggle against terrorism is a global concern,” Bwala stated. “We do not anticipate any U.S. military operations in Nigeria, however, we believe the two leaders could find common ground” (Washington Post).

Nigerian government officials explicitly rejected Cruz’s claims. Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu described Cruz’s legislation as “a mischaracterization of Nigeria’s complex security and religious freedom landscape” based on “incomplete and de-contextualized assessments” (Council on Foreign Relations). Minister of Information Mohammed Idris insisted Nigeria is “a very tolerant country” and rejected suggestions that Nigerian officials willingly side with violent extremists (Council on Foreign Relations).

Senate President Godswill Akpabio cautioned against framing the insecurity crisis along religious lines, noting that “terrorists and bandits target Nigerians indiscriminately, regardless of faith” (Council on Foreign Relations). This statement reflects the reality on the ground, where violence affects all Nigerians.

The Pentagon’s Confusion: When Social Media Becomes Military Policy

Trump’s social media threat caught Pentagon officials off guard. When Trump posted on Truth Social ordering the Pentagon to “prepare for possible action,” many military personnel learned about the directive simultaneously with the public (Reuters).

“I believe we are all discovering this information concurrently,” remarked a U.S. military official who requested anonymity (Reuters). Pentagon officials expressed confusion regarding Trump’s directives as they tried to grasp shifting priorities (Reuters).

Over the weekend, some staff at U.S. Africa Command were suddenly called back to headquarters following Trump’s Saturday post (CNN). A small team from AFRICOM, stationed in Germany, was quickly assembled to deliberate various options (CNN). However, the specifics of these plans remained unclear (CNN).

One source familiar with Trump’s perspective described the threats toward Nigeria as intended to “see how Nigeria responds,” characterizing it as “The Art of the Deal” strategy (CNN). When asked by reporters on Air Force One whether military action could mean sending U.S. troops or conducting airstrikes, Trump responded vaguely: “Could be. I mean, a lot of things. I envisage a lot of things” (Reuters).

From a military planning perspective, any interstate operation into Nigeria would confront substantial obstacles. The terrain is vast, with porous borders shared with Niger, Chad, Cameroon, and Benin (Military.com). Insurgent groups operate across regions without fixed positions (Military.com). The United States withdrew significant forces from Niger in recent years, reducing its Sahel footprint (Military.com).

Operational challenges would include basing, logistics, local consent, coordination with Nigerian military and federal authorities, and chain-of-command issues in a highly contested environment (Military.com). Analysts emphasize that any unilateral U.S. military operation without involvement of Nigerian security forces would not tackle root causes of instability and could further destabilize the nation (CNN).

The Economic Dimension: Oil, Trade, and Strategic Interests

Behind the humanitarian rhetoric lies economic reality. Nigeria is Africa’s largest oil producer and most populous nation with over 220 million people (Africanews). The country represents significant economic interests for the United States.

Interestingly, U.S.-Nigeria trade flows have shifted dramatically. The U.S. historically imported significant Nigerian crude oil, with monthly flows regularly reaching one million barrels per day in 2010 (API). However, imports declined over the past 15 years as U.S. domestic production increased (API).

In a remarkable reversal, the United States became a net exporter of crude oil to Nigeria for the first time in February and March 2025 (EIA). U.S. gross exports of crude oil to Nigeria reached 111,000 barrels per day in February 2025 and 169,000 barrels per day in March (EIA). This shift relates to Nigeria’s new Dangote refinery, which began processing crude oil in January 2024 (EIA).

In 2024, the United States traded $13 billion in goods and services with Nigeria, with $6.63 billion in exports and $6.41 billion in imports (USAFacts). This made Nigeria the 52nd top U.S. trading partner (USAFacts). Nigeria also provides a market for U.S. products, with top exports including cars valued at $1.04 billion, refined petroleum at $340 million, and petroleum gas at $136 million (Observatory of Economic Complexity).

Why This Matters Today: The Dangerous Precedent of Religious Foreign Policy

Trump’s Nigeria threat represents something far more significant than one president’s impulsive social media post. It establishes a dangerous precedent where evangelical Christian pressure groups can mobilize American military power based on selective narratives that ignore complex realities.

The framing of Nigeria’s crisis as Christian genocide serves specific political purposes. It mobilizes Trump’s evangelical base, which provided over 80 percent of his white evangelical vote in 2024 (Newsweek). It justifies potential military intervention under humanitarian guise. It deflects attention from failed U.S. policies that contributed to regional instability.

However, this narrative obscures truth and undermines genuine solutions. Nigeria faces a multifaceted security crisis driven by climate change, resource scarcity, governance failures, corruption, economic inequality, and various forms of extremism. Both Christians and Muslims suffer. Both need protection.

Unilateral U.S. military intervention would likely worsen the situation. History shows that American military operations in Africa create more problems than they solve. Somalia remains unstable 30 years after U.S. intervention. Libya descended into chaos after NATO bombing. The War on Terror in the Sahel failed to prevent the spread of extremism and contributed to anti-Western sentiment that fueled recent coups.

Nigerian analyst Nnamdi Obasi cautioned that any unilateral U.S. military operation against Islamist groups in Nigeria without Nigerian security forces involvement “would not be welcomed by Nigerians and could further polarize the nation, exacerbating its security challenges” (CNN). He called on the Nigerian government to “intensify efforts to halt the mass killings of citizens,” irrespective of their religious or other identities (CNN).

The Nigerian government can best respond by moving beyond defensiveness. It should counter misinformation with data. This moment calls for honesty, not posturing. Constructive dialogue, rather than social media outrage, will best serve Nigeria’s interests and the pursuit of peace (CNN).

For African communities, particularly Black Nigerians bearing the brunt of violence, Trump’s threat offers little genuine hope. Empty promises of military salvation do not address root causes. They risk making a bad situation catastrophic. What Nigeria needs is not American bombs but sustained support for security sector reform, economic development, climate adaptation, conflict resolution mechanisms, and accountable governance.

The history behind this headline reveals uncomfortable truths about American foreign policy in Africa. It exposes how colonial legacies, neocolonial patterns, evangelical activism, and domestic politics intersect to shape interventions that often harm the very people they claim to help. Until the United States confronts this history honestly and pursues policies grounded in genuine partnership rather than paternalistic intervention, African nations will remain justifiably skeptical of American promises to save them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.