Trump’s airstrike constitutes a breach of international law and underscores the fragility of the Nigerian state.
By Sani Khamees
On Friday, 26 December, the United States Department of War released a video on X (formerly Twitter) showing the strike on Jabo in the Tambuwal Local Government Area of Sokoto State. The attack followed a post from Trump, after which Secretary of War Pete Hegseth addressed the killings of Christians in Nigeria, warning that “more to come” if the violence continues. Trump stated, “Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!”
The Nigerian Government quickly issued a statement acknowledging the action and confirming that it was part of a long-standing security cooperation with the United States. Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar told the British Broadcasting Corporation that the strike was a “joint operation” targeting “terrorists”, and it “has nothing to do with a particular religion”. (US launches deadly strikes against Islamic State in Nigeria, says Trump, 2025)
Statements from Trump and the Nigerian government have raised concerns about whether the airstrike was carried out with Nigeria’s consent or if the government is compromising its sovereignty to avoid conflict with the United States. The U.S. claim of killing ISIS officials in Sokoto State is inconsistent, as ISIS primarily operates in north-eastern Nigeria, particularly in Maiduguri and the Chad Basin. In contrast, armed bandits and the recently formed Lakurawa are active in the northern region. This raises questions about Nigeria’s awareness of the operation.
Trump and the Department of War continue to claim that there is Christian genocide to justify their actions. This narrative is not accepted by the Nigerian government or its citizens. In reality, terrorism in Nigeria affects all communities, with Muslims suffering the most due to the concentration of violence in the predominantly Muslim northern region. This indicates that Trump’s approach is both inaccurate and biased, raising doubts about the sincerity of his intentions.
The Nigerian government has consistently failed to address insecurity, allowing militias to attack and kill civilians. Hundreds of villages have been destroyed, forcing mass displacement and resulting in long-term consequences such as hunger and starvation, as agriculture—the backbone of northern Nigeria’s economy—has been severely disrupted. (UN food agency projects northern Nigeria to experience hunger at an unprecedented level in 2026, 2025) Gang leaders have imposed control over communities, levying taxes and committing acts of violence. For example, in December 2021, Bello Turji, a notorious bandit leader in the Zamfara and Sokoto regions, attacked a vehicle in Sabon Birni, killing 30 passengers and setting them ablaze. In January 2022, he was responsible for the massacre of over 200 people in Zamfara. Recently, he has imposed protection levies totaling nearly 50 million naira on villages in Zamfara State.
Other bandit leaders, such as Ado Aliero of Yankuzo, Dogo Gide, Gwaska Dankarami, Kwashen Garwa, Kachalla Ali, Kachalla Dan Bokolo and many others, have committed similar acts, primarily affecting Muslim communities.
The government’s failure to address this crisis demonstrates its weakness and may warrant international attention.
However, President Trump’s approach is misguided and appears biased, as he lacks a fundamental understanding of the situation in Nigeria. The northeast is primarily affected by Boko Haram and ISIS, whose extremist ideology is rejected by most Muslims, who are often targeted as a result. Thousands of Muslims have lost their lives and livelihoods since these groups began their deadly operations in 2009.
In northwestern Nigeria, armed bandits operate through numerous gangs and factions. Unlike Boko Haram and ISIS, their activities are financially motivated, including kidnapping for ransom and violent retaliation against resistance. In north-central Nigeria, the crisis was previously characterised by ethno-religious and intertribal conflict in states such as Taraba, Benue, and Plateau. Recently, there has been a rise in kidnappings for ransom, often carried out by local groups.
As a result of the Nigerian government’s failure to address insecurity, there is now an opportunity for international intervention. While Trump’s intervention could prompt much-needed action, his approach raises concerns about his integrity, particularly due to his focus on ‘Christian genocide’ and neglect of the Muslim population, who are the primary victims in the north. If the United States is serious about addressing insecurity, it should base its actions on thorough research and verified reports, rather than fabricated narratives. The U.S. should also assist in identifying the sponsors and beneficiaries of terrorism, a task the Nigerian government has not accomplished.
Bombing civilian areas, as seen recently in Jabo, is itself a form of violence that has left communities in Sokoto living in fear. The impact of the recent strikes remains unclear, with only remnants of munitions left behind.
Therefore, Trump’s actions have violated Nigerian airspace and the sovereignty of the Nigerian state. The Nigerian government has also failed to safeguard its territorial boundaries and protect its citizens. The interventions by the United States have further exposed Nigeria’s diplomatic fragility and weakness. It has failed to establish a secure environment to exercise self-defence, and no other state is willing to offer deterrence or diplomatic support to Nigeria. This reflects the deep insensitivity of the Nigerian nation. For Nigeria to survive, it must develop and implement strategies to address internal crises and engage diplomatically within the international system.
Sani Khamees is a Pan-Africanist, community activist, and independent researcher.
