Donald Trump’s Quest for Regime Change in Nigeria: Untameable Killing of Christians as Pretext
Bola A. Akinterinwa
The conduct and management of Nigeria’s bilateral relations with the United States is currently fraught with a political lull. President Donald Trump has threatened to engage in a ‘guns-a-blazing’ military intervention in Nigeria because of an alleged inability of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) to prevent the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, especially in Northern Nigeria. More disturbingly, President Trump strongly believes that ‘radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter,’ that Nigeria is a ‘disgraced country,’ and that, in the event PBAT fails to stop the unnecessary killings, Nigeria should be prepared for US military intervention. As Trump put it, the U.S. could ‘go into that now disgraced country, guns-a-blazing.’
The threat is quite interesting from two perspectives. First is the mania of the threat: what do we mean by guns-a-blazing or threatening Nigeria with all guns-a-blazing? It means that the attacks on the killers of Christians in Nigeria will be reckless by determination. The attacks will be with all force and energy. The second perspective is the US interest in fighting all those killing Christians in Nigeria. In this regard, what right has the United States under President Donald Trump to issue a threat as a sovereign state to Nigeria, another sovereign state? Is the United States acting on the basis of a Free Willing State in international relations?
Several observers have tried to answer this question on the basis of the IR2P (International Responsibility to Protect). But what is the status of IR2P in international law and relations? Is the threat consistent with the non-intervention principle provided for under Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter? We observe here that any United States intervention in Nigeria is inconsistent with international law. Donald Trump is basically acting on the basis of his ‘Making America Great Again’ policy, but not acknowledging the deleterious implications that the policy might have at home and internationally.
MAGA as New American World Order
First, several issues are raised in the US threat. What is the implication of the consideration of Nigeria as a disgraced state? Who or what has disgraced Nigeria? Is the disgrace simply a matter of perception on the part of President Trump? Is the disgrace a fait accompli or an intention to make Nigeria a disgraced country? A second issue is the likely US engagement in a guns-a-blazing’ military intervention in Nigeria. Any act of guns-a-blazing is an act of intervention in the exclusive domestic affairs of Nigeria which is prohibited by Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. Thirdly, some commentators have raised the principle of International Responsibility to Protect as a justification for US military intervention. This argument cannot be logically tenable because the United States does not and cannot single-handedly constitute the international community. At best, the U.S. is only acting unilaterally and its unilateral action is again inconsistent with the spirit of Article 51 of the UN Charter which provides for protection of the collective interest for which the UNSC has a major mandate and whose approval is required following engagement in legitimate self-defence.
A fourth issue is the alleged PBAT’s inability to contain the killings of Christians in Nigeria. The act of killing of Christians cannot be separated from who is doing the killing. The hands of Islamic fundamentalists have been identified as part of the killers. Neither the United States, nor France, nor any of the European posers has been able to contain jihadist violence in the Sahel sub-region. Nigeria-US security cooperation has similarly failed to contain terrorism over the years. Consequently, holding PBAT responsible or capitalising on his inability to contain the jihadist violence in Nigeria is, at best, an untenable argument. This is why we observe that the declaration of any war against Christians in Nigeria is nothing more than a smokescreen. Our argument is that the US of Donald Trump is simply seeking a regime change in Nigeria, using the killing of Christians as a pretext. The US military intervention threat appears to have been designed as an illustration of the policy of ‘Make American Great Again’ (MAGA).
During the first presidency of Donald Trump, 20 January, 2017–January 20, 2021, he came up with a political agenda of ‘America First’. In other words, in whatever foreign policy undertaking that the United States would be engaged in, ‘America First’ must have the first priority or first preferential treatment at the international level, and protection of the national interests in terms of self-sufficiency and border security over and above all other considerations and multilateral agreements at the domestic level.
The policy is predicated on ‘principled realism and outcomes and not on ideology. No international commitment or treaty obligation shall override US national interests.’ The United States wants to provide global leadership by unilateralism, promote US hegemony through massive military build-up or peace through strength. ‘America First’ policy also entailed withdrawing from some international agreements and organisations, such as from the World Health Organisation, from the Paris Climate Change Accord, and from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal, etc. More important, defeating radical Islamic terror groups the world over is considered one major pillar of ‘America First’ policy. In essence, ‘America First’ policy considers economic security as national security, and therefore requiring a strict enforcement of the border, enhancement of deportation, and sustaining isolationist unilateralism.
When President Donald Trump returned to the White House, he reconceptualised his ‘America First’ of isolationist unilateralism into ‘Make America Great Again’, MAGA. The policy, unlike ‘America First,’ is very ideological. It promotes not only American nationalism, economic protectionism, social conservatism, but also sustained the pillars of ‘America First’: economic nationalism, energy dominance, prioritisation of American interests over international commitments.
What is noteworthy about the MAGA is that it necessarily assumes that America is not currently great as it used to be, and, therefore, requires making it great again. In making America great again, Donald Trump has introduced a yet-to-be-well-articulated American new world order that is apparently and largely defined by disregard for international law, engagement in gunboat diplomacy, and a transactional stick-and-carrot diplomacy. It is within this framework that the United States of Donald Trump has threatened to engage in a guns-a-blazing military intervention against those killing Christians in Nigeria.
The immediate causal dynamic of Donald Trump’s threat was the running of a story on how Christians were being targeted by Islamic groups in Nigeria while Donald Trump was watching Fox News when travelling to Florida (vide the report of Alayna Treene, Kevin Liptak, and Haley Britzky, “Trump saw segment on Fox News. Within an hour, he was laser-focused on Christians’ treatment in Nigeria,” in edition.cnn.com, updated November 4, 2025).
According to the report, when Air Force One landed in West Palm Beach, Donald Trump began posting on Truth Social: ‘Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter.’ It is against this background that President Trump decided to make Nigeria a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ under the International Religious Freedom Act and that he asked his Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, to prepare for possible action enabling the entry into Nigeria ‘guns-a-blazing.’ What is noteworthy about this issuance of threat to Nigeria is that it is considered as an ‘art of the deal’ type of strategy, meaning that Donald Trump wants ‘to see how Nigeria responds.’ But how has Nigeria reacted or been responding to the threats?
A second causal dynamic is the recidivist character of the reports on killings of Christians in Nigeria. It should be recalled that President Trump reportedly told President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) in 2018 at the White House about US concerns in the following words: ‘we are deeply concerned by religious violence in Nigeria, including the burning of churches and the killing and persecution of Christians. It’s a horrible story.’ This was the genesis of the initial designation of Nigeria as a ‘country of particular concern’ in 2020, when it was considered that there were ‘severe violations of religious freedoms.’ However, this consideration was reversed by the Joe Biden administration, but the particular concern remains thereafter.
A third causal dynamic for the issuance of the threat is the need to fulfil electoral promise. Trump promised to combat anti-Christian bias if elected. He therefore needs to show appreciation for the support given him by the evangelical Christians. Additionally, with the report of the Senior Adviser to the White House Faith Office, Paula White-Cain, who had travelled to Nigeria to minister, and intervention of Senator Ted Cruz, another evangelical Christian from Texas, who introduced a bill in September 2025 that sought sanctions against Nigeria for ‘ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians, the re-designation of Nigeria as a country of particular concern cannot but become a desideratum during the second coming of Donald Trump. In this regard, to what extent can Donald Trump be blamed when there are evident threats to Christianity in Northern Nigeria? If Trump is not blameable, does that mean aggressing Nigeria’s political and territorial sovereignty?
Why Killing of Christians is Untameable
The arguments on whether or not there is Christian genocide in Nigeria are most unfortunate because truths are used against truths to fabricate untruths. However, truths cannot be successfully fought even with specialised propaganda, or with weapons, or with defensive war of words. Truths can be distorted but cannot be destroyed. It is indestructible. Based on verifiable facts, we argue here that there is genocide at the level of Christians in Nigeria. Muslims have also been killed as rightly pointed out by many observers, but that does not imply genocide, because it is more of killings of Moderate Muslims by more radical Muslims. There is nothing to suggest that the killings of Muslims have a genocidal character.
Muslims opposed to the neutralisation of Christians in Nigeria might have been killed, but that should not be a good basis for US unilateral military intervention in Nigeria. Only mutual respect for national sovereignty can help to define the need for any foreign military intervention and the modus operandi of the intervention if need be, should be agreed upon by both countries, especially since the containment of jihadist violence is a shared problem in both countries. Let us look at the definienda and why the killing of Christians has become untameable.
First, the US-killed President of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, suggested in 2010, when there was a sectarian violence in Jos, that Nigeria should be divided into Muslim North and Christian South. He first mooted the idea of the 1947 partitioning of British India into Hindu-dominated India and Muslim Pakistan as a possible two-state solution to Nigeria’s recidivist jihadist violence. Additionally, he offered the Yugoslavian model of partitioning Nigeria to multiple independent states on the basis of her various ethnic groups: Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, etc. As he saw it, this was one good approach to attain peaceful secession in Nigeria.
Even though many observers saw this proposition as controversial because he was a major proponent of United States of Africa with a single government, single currency, and unified military, especially as espoused at the 9-9-1999 African Summit held in Sirté, his home town, Gaddafi had it that there would never be peace in Nigeria until Nigeria is partitioned into Muslim North and Christian South. We have already written on this issue in this column in the past. Nigeria’s reaction to the proposal was simply to angrily recall Nigeria’s ambassador to Tripoli and describing the suggestion as ‘irresponsible utterances’ that make a mockery of his quest for continental integration. This suggestion, whatever it is worth appeared to have strongly impacted on those killing the Christians. The message of Colonel Gaddafi necessarily encouraged the jihad fundamentalists to have a Muslim agenda, Islamisation of Northern Nigeria, if not the whole of Nigeria, to begin with.
Secondly, the Boko Haramists-declared agenda is to replace Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution with the Sharia law. As this could not be easily done, engagement in the destruction of churches became their strategy. In other words, it is Islamisation by force. This was one of the foundational pillars of the current genocide. This means that religion cannot be separated from the question of genocide
Thirdly, there were several international reports on targeted attacks on churches in the North. According to the BBC in 2012, ‘at least 17 people were killed in Mubi in Adamawa state as gunmen opened fire in a town hall where members of the Christian Igbo group were meeting. There were also reports of a deadly attack in Adamawa’s capital, Yola. The Islamist Boko Haram group said it had carried out the attack.’ Perhaps what is most disturbing is that ‘one Boko Haram faction has warned all southerners – who are mostly Christian and animist – to leave the mainly Muslim north of Nigeria’ (Vide “An attack on a church outside Abuja killed 17 people on Christmas Day” (vide bbc.com, updated 7 January 2012). This report is self-explanatory: the attack took place on a Christmas Day. It was a church that was targeted. It was at the time the 17 Christians were praying that the attack took place. How do we explain the motivation of the killers in this case?
Under the administration of Dr Goodluck Jonathan, the President himself told Nigerians that there were Boko Haram agents in his administration. At the Remembrance Day church service in Abuja, President Jonathan made it clear that there were some Boko Haram sympathisers ‘in the executive arm of government, some of them are in the parliamentary/legislative arm of government, while some of them are even in the judiciary. Some are also in the armed forces, the police and other security agencies.’ And more seriously, President Jonathan said the situation was ‘even worse than the civil war that we fought. During the civil war, we knew and we could even predict where the enemy was coming from. But the challenge we have today is more complicated.’
If we admit of the revelation of President Jonathan, it shouldn’t be a surprise that every military undertaking by Government was always undermined, soldiers were ambushed, Boko Haram enjoyed official support. Under President Jonathan, the declared objective of the Boko Haram was ‘Boko Haram’ but the narrative changed under PMB. The name Boko Haram simply means ‘Western education is forbidden,’ implying that whatever is Western in character should be removed, including Nigeria’s Constitution and the Government in place. However, under PMB, the initial objective was to secure the possible support of PMB during his first two years but unsuccessfully. The focus of the Boko Haram was to establish Islamic Caliphate but which PMB resisted. The point of emphasis here is the strong quest to Islamise.
The case of Leah Sharibu in Dapchi in February 2018 in Yobe in the North east of Nigeria is noteworthy. She was one of the 110 school girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram. All other kidnapped school girls on 19 February, 2018 were released except her. Her non-release was because of her blunt refusal to be converted to Islam. Why forceful conversion into Islam? Is the problem not religious in this case?
In the same vein, it was because of commitment to the Christian faith that Deborah Samuel, a student of the Shehu Shagari College of Education, was gruesomely killed by her student colleagues allegedly for blasphemous statements about Prophet Muhammad in a WhatsApp group. She was brutally killed and burnt, suspects were arrested but there were public protests against the arrest of the two suspects by the police. The public protests threatened security and prompted the Governor of Sokoto State, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, to plead for peace and to ask everyone, ‘in the interest of peace to go back home.’ This case clearly shows the fragility of the relationship between Muslim jihadists and Christians in Nigeria, especially in the Northern part of Nigeria.
Fourthly, there was a killing of 31 people in a church in Port Harcourt. A week after, in Owo, Ondo State, the killing of Christians continued at the Saint Francis Catholic Church on Sunday, June 5, 2022. As reported by the CNN, ‘the attackers came on motorcycles and started shooting sporadically. They killed many people inside the church. The Ondo State Governor then, Rotimi Akeredolu, described the day as ‘black Sunday in Owo.’
As regards the issue of mass killings of Christians, testimonies abound. The article of James Barnett of the University of Oxford in The Washington Post of November 7, 2025 lends much credence to the killings of Christians in Nigeria. He confirmed having personally witnessed the killings of Christians but argued that ‘a military intervention premised on the wrong diagnoses would not save Nigerian Christians. It would only deepen Nigeria’s troubles while drawing the US into a set of conflicts it is not equipped to solve. Trump’s base, though concerned about Christians, is surely not interested in a repeat of a Black Hawk Down or Libya.’
As correct as James Barnett may be, if Muammar Gaddafi argued that there would never be peace in Nigeria until Nigeria is divided into Muslim North and Christian South, it means the killings of Christians have a religious dynamic. There may be other reasons for insecurity and killings of Christians but the main definienda is religion. Donald Trump cannot be faulted on that. However, he is wrong in wanting to solve the problem by guns-a-blazing. It is unlawful. The U.S. cannot even hide under the principle of IR2P because the U.S. cannot alone constitute the international community. Based on his MAGA policy, Trump simply does not want a Nigeria that can frontally challenge the U.S. which Nigeria under PBAT is doing. True, empirical proofs abound for genocidal killings of Christian. Muslims are also killed, but their killing is not genocidal in design. Genocide is internationally defined by four factors: deliberate intention to destroy; act of targeting a specific group; method of cruelty in killing (mental harm, physical destruction, prevention of birth, forceful transfer of children outside of their domain to another place, etc.). In short, genocide, as coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, is not only an international crime under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but also a war crime and a crime against humanity. Additionally, genocide as an act or crime may not take place at once. It can be gradual in process and can procedurally have ten stages. But of the ten stages (classification of ‘us’ and ‘them’; symbolisation; discrimination; dehumanisation; organisation; polarisation; preparation; persecution; murder; and denial), denial is the crescendo of all. This is why it is difficult for the international community to accept the denial by the Government of Christian genocide in Nigeria.
