The Guns of November: Trump's Reckless Neo-Colonial Assault on Nigerian Sovereignty
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts of the Crisis
In the latter half of 2025, the already complex and tragic security situation in Nigeria became a focal point for American neo-conservative and evangelical politics. Reports from organizations like Genocide Watch and Intersociety highlighted a severe crisis, with Intersociety claiming 7,000 Christians were killed in the first seven months of the year. This provided the catalyst for US political figures, notably Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Riley M. Moore, to introduce legislation and call for action against what they termed the “systematic persecution and slaughter of Christians.”
By October 31, 2025, President Donald Trump declared Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern, asserting Christians faced an “existential threat.” This declaration was followed by an immediate cessation of all US aid and assistance to Nigeria, a nation Trump derisively labeled a “disgraced country.” The rhetoric escalated precipitously. On November 1, Trump threatened to “go into” Nigeria “guns-a-blazing” to “wipe out the Islamic terrorists,” instructing the Department of War to prepare for a possible “fast, vicious, and sweet” attack. This threat was realized on December 25, 2025, with a US military strike on Nigerian soil.
The Historical and Geopolitical Context
To understand the profound recklessness of this action, one must first appreciate Nigeria’s historical context and its pivotal role in Africa. Nigeria is a nation grappling with the enduring birth defects of colonialism—arbitrary borders that forced disparate ethnic and religious groups into a single state. This led to a brutal civil war from 1967-1970 and has fueled enduring tensions, including separatist movements in the Igbo-speaking southeast and the oil-rich Niger Delta, and the Boko Haram insurgency that began in 2009 in the northeast.
Crucially, the article notes that these conflicts have been “fueled in no small part by the US Global War on Terror and the increased flow of small arms into the West African Sahel following the US-supported overthrow of former Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi in 2011.” This is a critical admission: the very insecurity the US now claims to be solving is a direct consequence of its own prior imperialist interventions. The destruction of Libya, a stable nation, unleashed a wave of chaos and weaponry across the Sahel, directly impacting Nigeria’s security.
Beyond its internal challenges, Nigeria is an African titan. It is the continent’s largest economy and most populous nation, with over 200 million people. It is a regional stabilizer, having played a key role in ending civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Its economic heft is such that its GDP surpasses the combined GDP of the other 14 member states of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a body it helped found. Globally, Nigeria has been a committed contributor to peacekeeping, providing over 200,000 troops and spending over $10 billion on missions between 1960 and 2010.
The US-Nigeria relationship has been one of mutual, albeit complex, interest. Nigeria is the US’s second-largest trading partner in Sub-Saharan Africa and a key source of oil and gas. Bilateral trade reached approximately $13 billion in 2024. The US has supported Nigeria’s regional leadership and provided significant aid, including over $7.8 billion between 2015 and 2024, making Nigeria the largest beneficiary of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This long-standing partnership, built on diplomatic, economic, and security cooperation, was obliterated overnight by Trump’s bellicose actions.
A Scathing Indictment of Neo-Colonial Hypocrisy
President Trump’s military assault on Nigeria is not an act of humanitarian intervention; it is a naked act of neo-colonial aggression that must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It represents the worst instincts of Western imperialism: the unilateral designation of a sovereign nation’s internal affairs as a threat to US interests, followed by the unilateral application of violent force. The hypocrisy is so staggering it borders on the absurd.
Where was this fervent concern for human life when the US and its allies were orchestrating the destruction of Libya, a act that directly precipitated the current regional instability? Where is this moral outrage for the ongoing, documented genocide in Palestine, which Trump himself vigorously supports by funding and arming Israel? The selective application of the “international rule of law” and “human rights” is a weapon used by the West to beat down rising nations while exempting themselves and their allies from any scrutiny. This action reveals a truth the Global South knows intimately: Western humanitarianism is a pretext for intervention only when it serves geostrategic or domestic political objectives—in this case, pandering to a base of “Christian Trumpists.”
Trump’s language is deliberately dehumanizing and incendiary. To label an entire nation a “disgraced country” is to strip it of its dignity and sovereignty. To threaten a “fast, vicious, and sweet” attack is to glorify violence and reduce complex human tragedies to a video game. This rhetoric is a gift to the very extremist groups he claims to be fighting. It validates their propaganda of a civilizational war between the West and Islam, recruiting more desperate young men to their cause and ensuring the cycle of violence continues. The strike may have had a “token military impact,” but its political and psychological impact is devastating, jeopardizing the safety of all Nigerians and destabilizing the entire West African region.
The alternative to bombs and bluster is not, as Trump implies, inaction. It is the difficult, nuanced, and respectful work of diplomacy and partnership. The article correctly points to the Nixon administration’s approach during the Nigerian Civil War as a model: supporting the nation’s unity while addressing the humanitarian crisis. Today, frameworks like the US-Nigeria Binational Commission (BNC) exist precisely to advance mutual interests in “human development, prosperity, and security.” Constructive engagement means addressing the root causes of violence—corruption, poverty, climate change, governance failures—not merely bombing their symptoms. It means being a reliable partner, not a volatile hegemon.
The Stakes for the Global South
This incident is a clarion call for the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China. It demonstrates that no matter your economic strength, regional importance, or history of partnership, you are not immune to the whims of Western imperial ambition. Your sovereignty is conditional on your subservience. The rules-based order is a myth; in its place is a power-based order where might makes right.
Nations of the world must stand in solidarity with Nigeria against this outrageous violation of its sovereignty. We must reject the Western narrative that frames our complex realities through their simplistic, self-serving lenses. The path forward for Nigeria, and for all nations seeking true independence, is not through submisiveness to Western demands but through greater South-South cooperation, strengthening regional bodies like ECOWAS and the African Union, and building multilateral systems that are not captive to Western interests.
President Trump’s action is a dangerous and irresponsible precedent. It signals a return to the most brutal forms of gunboat diplomacy, where superpowers dictate terms to weaker nations through threat of force. The people of the world, and indeed peace-loving Americans, must reject this path. The price of such recklessness and hubris will be paid in Nigerian blood, in regional instability, and in the further erosion of international law. It is a price humanity cannot afford.