Washington’s gaze has once again fixed itself on Nigeria; this time with an intensity that is unsettling officials in Abuja. Barely weeks after reported US airstrikes on Christmas Day against terrorist targets in northern Nigeria, the administration of President Donald Trump is signaling that America’s military footprint in Africa’s most populous country could expand further. The delivery this week of US military equipment to Nigerian security agencies, confirmed by US Africa Command (AFRICOM), has reinforced perceptions in Abuja that Nigeria is slipping ever deeper into Washington’s counter-terrorism crosshairs.
AFRICOM said the shipment, delivered in Abuja, was part of “our shared security partnership” and aimed at supporting Nigeria’s ongoing operations against armed groups. Though the command declined to itemize the equipment and Nigerian authorities have yet to publicly acknowledge receipt, the symbolism was unmistakable: the United States is not stepping back; it is digging in.
The delivery follows remarks by President Trump in which he suggested that further American airstrikes could be considered if attacks on Christians in Nigeria continue. Trump described earlier strikes; which took place on Christmas Day, as initially intended to be a one-off. But his language since has been anything but restrained, portraying Nigeria as both a frontline in a global war on terror and a moral test case for his administration’s pledge to defend persecuted Christians worldwide.
That framing has alarmed policymakers and security officials in Abuja. Privately, Nigerian officials worry that Trump’s fixation risks recasting Nigeria not as a sovereign partner but as a theatre of operations; one where Washington decides when threats justify unilateral force. “Counter-terrorism cooperation is one thing,” a senior security source told Huhuonline.com. “Foreign combat operations on Nigerian soil are another entirely,” the source added.
Nigeria has long battled a complex web of militant threats, from jihadist groups in the northeast to armed banditry and kidnappings in the northwest and central regions. Successive governments have welcomed intelligence-sharing, training and equipment from partners including the United States. In 2021, Washington supplied Nigeria with encrypted satellite phones, night-vision goggles and tactical radios to bolster air and artillery coordination. What is different now, officials say, is tone and intent.
Trump’s repeated public references to Nigeria – often framed through the lens of religious violence -have raised concerns that Washington may seek to justify deeper intervention under the banner of humanitarian protection or counter-terrorism urgency. Analysts in Abuja note that such rhetoric, if paired with further strikes, could inflame domestic tensions, undermine the Nigerian military’s authority, and hand propaganda victories to extremist groups eager to portray the government as a proxy of foreign powers.
International law is clear that any foreign military action requires the consent of the host state. Nigerian experts stress that any US operation must be conducted jointly and with explicit presidential authorization. Yet the opacity surrounding the reported Christmas Day strikes; and the absence of detailed public briefings from either government, has only fueled speculation.
For Washington, the calculus appears driven by Trump’s instinctive preference for kinetic solutions and high-visibility action. For Abuja, the stakes are existential. Nigeria must defeat terrorism, but not at the cost of eroding its sovereignty or surrendering strategic control of its own security space. The equipment delivery may be wrapped in the language of partnership, but in Nigeria’s corridors of power, a harder question is being asked: at what point does help begin to look like intervention; and who ultimately decides where that line is drawn?
