The recent threat by US president Donald Trump to authorise military action in Nigeria has ignited unease both within and outside the country.
His remarks, reportedly grounded in allegations of a so-called genocide against Christians, risk injecting volatility into an already fragile security environment. While such statements may appear as mere political rhetoric, they carry serious implications that Nigeria — and indeed the US — cannot afford to ignore.
It is possible that Trump’s comment was intended as a diplomatic lever — a way to compel Nigerian authorities to respond more decisively to internal security challenges. Yet, even as a tactic, such a threat undermines established norms of state sovereignty and mutual respect that underpin international relations. Nigeria must therefore approach this situation with both restraint and resolve: to engage diplomatically with Washington while making it clear that such rhetoric, when made public, harms not only Nigeria’s dignity but also broader US strategic interests in Africa.
Nigeria continues to grapple with one of the most complex security crises in sub-Saharan Africa. From the jihadist insurgency in the Lake Chad Basin to banditry and communal conflicts in the Northwest and Northcentral regions, the state faces multiple, overlapping threats. The government, despite ongoing reforms, remains overstretched, making external partnerships — particularly with the US — vital for intelligence gathering, counterterrorism training and the fight against illicit financial flows that sustain violent actors.
However, genuine partnership cannot flourish under the shadow of coercion. Nigeria needs the US as a partner in capacity-building, not as a patron threatening punitive action. Such threats feed suspicion, alienate public opinion and risk pushing Nigeria toward alternative alliances that may not share the same democratic and human rights values that Washington purportedly seeks to promote. A co-operative approach, emphasising dialogue, shared intelligence and institutional strengthening, is the only viable path forward.
Nigeria needs the US as a partner in capacity-building, not as a patron threatening punitive action.
The portrayal of Nigeria’s insecurity as a one-sided persecution of Christians is both inaccurate and dangerous. In reality, Nigeria’s conflicts are multifaceted, shaped by governance failures, extremist ideology, competition over resources, climate pressures and organised crime. Both Muslims and Christians have suffered immensely. Reducing this complexity to a binary of religious victimhood distorts the truth and inflames sectarian sensitivities that Nigeria has long struggled to contain.
The US, with one of its largest diplomatic missions in Africa based in Abuja, has access to a wealth of accurate information. Its policy decisions should therefore be grounded in verified data and nuanced understanding rather than politicised advocacy or misinformation. Rash decisions informed by distorted narratives could destabilise Nigeria further and erode years of US engagement aimed at promoting stability and interfaith tolerance.
It would be naïve to ignore the possibility that geopolitical and economic considerations underlie the threat of military intervention. Nigeria’s vast mineral endowment — particularly in gold, lithium and other critical resources — has become a magnet for international competition. Insecurity in mineral-rich regions such as Zamfara, Nasarawa and Niger states has already allowed networks of local and foreign actors to engage in unregulated mining and smuggling activities, often with protection from powerful interests.
Entrenching instability
A US intervention, especially if it relies on private military contractors — a hallmark of recent Western engagements in Africa — would likely intensify these dynamics and replicate the kinds of severe negative outcomes associated with Wagner-type Russian meddling. Such an approach risks entrenching the very conditions of instability it purports to resolve, while enriching rogue profiteers who benefit from disorder.
The resulting erosion of Nigerian state authority in resource-producing zones would not only perpetuate violence but also feed public suspicion of foreign motives, undermining US credibility across the continent. Given the recent history of US misadventures in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, it would be well advised to avoid further alienating potential allies.
In Nigeria’s northwest the rise of a new militant group known as Lakurawa presents a growing danger. The group, which claims to seek the enforcement of Sharia law, now controls pockets of territory in Sokoto and exerts varying levels of influence in more than half of Kebbi’s local government areas.
Ongoing research by Good Governance Africa (GGA) and corroborating field reports suggest that Lakurawa has established operational links with the JAS faction of Boko Haram, with the possibility of an alignment with the Sahel-based al-Qaeda affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), which recently claimed its first attack in Nigeria.
A publicised US threat of military action could dangerously shift the strategic calculations of such groups. Feeling validated by the attention of the world’s most powerful nation, they might escalate attacks against Christian communities to reinforce Washington’s perception of a religiously motivated conflict.
The cautionary tales of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan demonstrate the perils of military interventions undertaken on simplified premises or in disregard of local complexities.
This would be disastrous, as it would transform a complex security crisis into a sectarian one — amplifying polarisation, eroding interfaith coexistence and undermining fragile local peacebuilding efforts that have taken years to cultivate.
The cautionary tales of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan demonstrate the perils of military interventions undertaken on simplified premises or in disregard of local complexities. In each of these cases the initial intent — to restore order or protect civilians — gave way to long-term instability, state collapse and humanitarian catastrophe. Nigeria, with its population of over 220-million, its multi-ethnic composition, and its role as a regional anchor, is far more complex. Any external military involvement, even if framed as humanitarian, would multiply conflict actors, deepen mistrust between communities, and risk spreading instability beyond Nigeria’s borders.
While Trump’s statement is alarming, it should also serve as a reminder to Nigerian leaders of the urgent need to fulfil their constitutional responsibility to protect the lives and property of all citizens without discrimination. The best defence against external pressure is credible internal governance. When citizens feel protected and included, external narratives lose their potency. Nigeria must therefore accelerate reforms in security sector accountability, strengthen early warning and response systems, and invest in social and economic development programmes that address the root causes of violence.
The government must also do more to communicate transparently with its citizens and the international community. Silence or reactive diplomacy only fuels speculation and cedes narrative control to actors with less benign intentions. By articulating a clear, evidence-based account of the conflict’s realities, Nigeria can reclaim ownership of its story and foster more constructive international engagement.
Respect, realism and long-term vision
For the US, Nigeria remains an indispensable partner in Africa. The two countries share democratic values, economic ties and a mutual interest in defeating terrorism and preserving stability in West Africa. The relationship should therefore be guided by respect, realism and long-term vision rather than by political expediency or the urge to act unilaterally. The US should resist the temptation to frame Nigeria’s crisis in moral absolutes or to resort to coercive measures that could undo years of progress in bilateral co-operation.
The path forward must focus on partnership. The US can help Nigeria by deepening intelligence co-operation, providing training and logistical support for professionalised security forces, assisting in counter-terrorism financing, and expanding humanitarian and development aid in conflict-affected areas. These efforts, combined with Nigeria’s own reforms in governance and justice, would build resilience and strengthen mutual trust.
Nigeria’s security challenges are profound, but they are not insurmountable. What the country needs is not foreign military intervention but genuine, respectful co-operation with partners committed to its stability and sovereignty. The US, a long-standing ally, has much to gain from a stable Nigeria and much to lose from a destabilised one. It is in both nations’ interests to ensure that engagement remains constructive, fact-based and anchored in the shared pursuit of peace.
For Trump and other American leaders, the challenge is to resist the allure of impulsive action and to embrace the wisdom of restraint. For Nigeria the challenge is to strengthen its governance, unify its people, and confront insecurity with resolve and fairness. Only then can both nations demonstrate that true leadership — whether global or domestic — lies not in threats but in thoughtful action guided by truth, justice and mutual respect.
• Samuel, a senior researcher at Good Governance Africa–Nigeria, previously worked with the Institute for Security Studies, focusing on the Boko Haram conflict in the Lake Chad Basin, and with Amnesty International Nigeria as a conflict researcher. Dr Bello is executive director of Good Governance Africa–Nigeria, driving reform through ethics training for senior officials and support for multilateral missions, including the Uneca/AU mineral governance team.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.