Nigerian American scholars and community members are raising concerns about the Trump administration’s Christmas Day airstrikes in northwestern Nigeria, arguing that U.S. officials have oversimplified the country’s violence by framing it as religious persecution. Critics warn that mischaracterizing Nigeria’s complex security crisis could escalate civilian harm rather than reduce it.
They call Trump’s rationale oversimplified
The Trump administration’s Christmas Day airstrikes in northwestern Nigeria, framed by the White House as a move to weaken ISIS-linked militants and protect Nigerian Christians, are drawing skepticism from Nigerian American voices who say the country’s violence is far more complex than U.S. officials suggest. Critics also warned that escalation could put civilians at greater risk.
U.S. Africa Command said it carried out strikes on December 25 in Nigeria’s Sokoto State in coordination with Nigerian authorities. AFRICOM said initial assessments indicated multiple ISIS militants were killed but declined to release additional operational details for security reasons.
President Donald Trump, however, publicly tied the operation to religious persecution, saying militants had been viciously killing primarily Christians and warning that further U.S. action could follow. Reuters reported that the strike was conducted at the request of the Nigerian government and that Nigerian officials described it as part of broader counterterrorism cooperation, not a religiously targeted campaign.
Dr. Richard Oni, a Nigerian-born scholar with a doctorate in mental health management, said he struggled to see a clear connection between the administration’s stated rationale and the realities of conflict on the ground.
“The connection to ISIS, the Christian Nigerians, and the bombing, I do not see the nexus there,” Oni said in an interview. “I do not see a connection.”
Ola Obadiya, a Nigerian American, said the administration’s emphasis on protecting Christians in Nigeria oversimplifies the situation. Violence in the country affects people of many faiths, and Christians are not confined to a single region.
“The terrorist attacks in Nigeria are not only Christian,” Obadiya said. “It is not about religion. Christians are all over the place. We are intermingled.” He said the religious framing ignores overlapping conflicts involving banditry, displacement, and economic pressures.
Both Oni and Obadiya questioned whether the strikes as described by U.S. officials would actually reduce violence or risk worsening it. Obadiya said he was not convinced the strike locations aligned with where the most serious threats exist.
“The places where the bombs actually landed, so far, there are no conflicts in those areas. There is no ISIS presence in those areas,” he said. Oni similarly said the administration has not provided a clear, verifiable explanation for how the strike links to ISIS or to protecting Christians.
The administration’s posture has raised concern because Trump has previously suggested the United States could deploy ground troops to Nigeria. Analysts and community voices caution that unilateral military action, especially without broad consultation, risks harming civilians and deepening instability.
Oni and Obadiya emphasized that foreign intervention can be driven more by politics than by the needs of ordinary people. Oni said such actions should be undertaken only with careful consideration of local dynamics.
“To go to another country with only a few people endorsing your presence is not right,” he said. “Innocent people are going to suffer. Killing is not an option. Two wrongs do not make a right.”
Both experts highlighted the broader context of Nigeria’s security crisis. Violence often stems from competition over land and resources, long-running tensions between herders and farmers, and the proliferation of weapons. The conflict can escalate when politics, ethnicity or religion are added to the mix.
“If you want to do something for somebody, you need to ask them questions about it,” Oni said. “Make sure you do not hear from just one person.”
Obadiya said the administration’s stated concern for Nigerians contrasts with other U.S. policy choices, including reductions in aid for health and basic needs. He argued that human security cannot be addressed solely through military force.
Experts also expressed concern that the narrative framing the strikes as defending Christians could oversimplify U.S. foreign policy objectives and inflame tensions locally. Mischaracterizing local conflicts risks undermining the very communities the United States claims to protect.
The Christmas Day strikes highlight the challenge of balancing counterterrorism goals with civilian safety. Analysts said diaspora voices provide important context, reminding U.S. policymakers that Nigeria’s conflicts are shaped by complex social, economic and political factors.
“Outside help can still harm communities if decisions are made without consultation and accountability,” Oni said. “You cannot assume that military action is a solution to violence.”
Obadiya agreed, emphasizing that escalation could backfire and worsen civilian harm. “We cannot solve insecurity by dropping bombs. Protecting people requires understanding their reality, not simplifying it into a religious narrative.”
As the U.S. navigates its role in Nigeria, Nigerian Americans like Oni and Obadiya are calling for greater scrutiny, local engagement, and a nuanced approach that addresses underlying causes of violence rather than relying primarily on military intervention.
Scott Selmer welcomes reader responses at sselmer@spokesman-recorder.com.