The Cross and the Oil: what really lies behind Trump’s threat to Nigeria
- João Pedro Nascimento
- Nov 11, 2025
- 5 min read
Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.
What is happening in Nigeria
Nigeria is experiencing a complex crisis that combines ethnic, religious, economic, and territorial violence. The country faces multiple internal threats, from jihadist groups in the north, such as Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa, to agrarian conflicts between Fulani herders, who are mostly Muslim, and Christian farmers in the central region. These clashes, often described as religious, are in fact the result of decades of resource scarcity, desertification, and competition for fertile land, all worsened by poverty and the state’s inability to ensure security and justice.
Nigeria’s institutions are overstretched: the armed forces operate on multiple fronts, and corruption undermines both defense funding and public trust. Although there are episodes of sectarian violence, what is happening is not a systematic persecution of Christians promoted by the state, as some foreign narratives suggest. Instead, it is a crisis of governance in which communities of all faiths are victims of impunity, inequality, and neglect.
Trump’s Statement
Donald Trump publicly declared that Nigeria is experiencing a “genocide of Christians” and that he instructed the Pentagon, which he referred to as the “Department of War,” to prepare for a possible military intervention. The declaration had a tone of moral urgency, suggesting that the United States could not “stand by” in the face of what he described as “a massacre of innocents for reasons of faith.” This rhetoric echoes Trump’s characteristic style, direct, emotional, and aimed at creating immediate impact, even when the underlying information is inaccurate or incomplete.
The statement fits into a highly polarized domestic political context, in which Trump seeks to consolidate the support of his most loyal base, especially the conservative Christian electorate. This segment of the American electorate sees foreign policy as an instrument for defending Christian values around the world and has for years pressured the government to intervene in cases of religious persecution, particularly in African and Middle Eastern countries. By adopting the banner of protecting persecuted Christians, Trump activates powerful symbols for this audience: morality, divine mission, and Western civilizational supremacy.
More than a simple humanitarian reaction, the speech serves an electoral mobilization strategy. By positioning himself as the protective leader of Christians, Trump tries to reaffirm his messianic image to religious groups that see him as an instrument chosen by God to restore American greatness. This narrative reinforces the idea that the United States would have a spiritual and historical responsibility to act against foreign governments that “allow” persecutions of the Christian faith.
On a symbolic level, the use of the expression “Department of War” instead of “Department of Defense” is significant. Trump deliberately evokes pre–Cold War language that refers to military power as the main instrument of American foreign policy. In doing so, he seeks not only to impress his domestic audience but also to convey an image of strength and determination to external adversaries. This rhetorical choice suggests the return of a binary worldview, between civilization and barbarism, faith and chaos, in which America resumes the role of guardian of the Western Christian order.
On the international level, the speech can also be interpreted as a geopolitical instrument. Nigeria is the largest economy and main military force in West Africa, and in recent decades has been drawing closer to new power poles such as China, Russia, and India. Nigeria’s entry into the BRICS symbolizes a shift in the strategic axis that reduces dependence on the West and expands the influence of powers not aligned with Washington. For the United States, this movement represents a threat to the traditional political, economic, and military dominance over the African continent. Thus, by turning the Nigerian crisis into a global security issue, Trump reintroduces the U.S. into the African chessboard under the pretext of religious defense. This tactic is not new: humanitarian discourses have often been used to justify external interventions, such as in Iraq (2003) or Libya (2011). The difference is that, in the Nigerian case, the moral rhetoric relies on a very active domestic religious base, which amplifies and legitimizes the narrative before the American electorate.
The position of the Nigerian government
President Bola Tinubu and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reacted promptly, rejecting the accusation of genocide and classifying Trump’s statements as “unfounded and dangerous.” The government acknowledges internal security challenges but insists that there is no institutionalized religious persecution and that the Nigerian State remains committed to protecting all citizens, regardless of faith. Tinubu also reaffirmed that any international cooperation must occur in accordance with national sovereignty and preferably through multilateral organizations, such as the UN or the African Union.
The View of NGOs and Independent Data
Recent reports from organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project) contradict the version of religious genocide. These studies show that episodes of violence in Nigeria have mostly socioeconomic and territorial causes and that both Christians and Muslims are among the victims. The NGOs highlight that the lack of public security, the fragility of the judicial system, and the ineffectiveness of the local government create an environment of impunity that perpetuates the attacks, but there is no evidence of a deliberate campaign of extermination based on religion.
In addition, these organizations warn that simplifying the Nigerian crisis as Christian persecution can have disastrous consequences. Such discourse not only distorts reality but also instrumentalizes the suffering of victims for political and geostrategic purposes. It contributes to international polarization and hinders the coordination of genuinely humanitarian efforts, diverting resources from development and local mediation programs.
Consequences of a United States Attack
a) Political and Diplomatic
It would cause a rupture in U.S. relations.
It would reinforce the narrative that the U.S. uses moral causes as a pretext for military interference, favoring the anti-Western discourse.
It would stimulate a strategic rapprochement between Nigeria and China and Russia, which would exploit the episode to expand economic and military presence on the continent.
b) Humanitarian and Social
An attack would cause civilian casualties and massive displacements, in a country that already has millions of internally displaced people.
It would generate radicalization and anti-American sentiment, even among Christian communities that would see the intervention as an invasion.
It could fuel jihadist recruitment, turning local groups into nationalist resistance actors.
Trump’s discourse is part of a logic in which religion and geopolitics are confused, transforming an internal Nigerian crisis into an arena of global ideological dispute. Although Nigeria faces serious security problems, an American intervention, even a limited one, would have the potential to worsen chaos, weaken the Nigerian State, and realign the African strategic balance in favor of rival powers.
The most prudent solution is multilateral and diplomatic: strengthening local capacities, investing in rural and climate development, and treating violence as a socioeconomic, not a religious, phenomenon. This not only preserves Nigeria’s sovereignty but also prevents turning an internal tragedy into a global geopolitical crisis.
References
AL JAZEERA. “No Christian genocide in Nigeria” gov’t says after Trump’s threats. Al Jazeera. Disponível em: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/2/nigeria-welcomes-us-assistance-to-fight-terrorism-after-trumps-threats>.
OBASI, Nnamdi. Why is President Trump Threatening a Humanitarian Intervention in Nigeria? | International Crisis Group. Crisis Group. Disponível em: <https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/nigeria-united-states/why-president-trump-threatening-humanitarian-intervention-nigeria>.
THE ECONOMIST. Donald Trump says he may strike Nigeria to save Christians. Really? The Economist. Disponível em: <https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2025/11/06/donald-trump-says-he-may-strike-nigeria-to-save-christians-really>. Acesso em: 11 nov. 2025.
WINTER, Joseph. Trump tells military to plan for “action” over his claim that Nigeria allows killing of Christians. BBC News, 2025. Disponível em: <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev18jy21w7o>.
Comments