The Nigerian government has moved to correct public claims by Donald Trump after he framed recent U.S. airstrikes in northwest Nigeria as retaliation for what he described as mass killings of Christians. In a statement released after Trump’s comments, Nigeria’s Foreign Ministry said the characterization was inaccurate and risked misrepresenting the nature of the country’s security crisis.

Trump said the United States carried out “powerful and deadly” strikes against Islamic State-linked militants, claiming they were targeting Christians at unprecedented levels. Nigerian officials confirmed intelligence sharing with Washington ahead of the operation but stressed that the strikes were conducted within a broader counterterrorism framework, not a religious campaign.

Counterterrorism, Not Sectarian Conflict

In its statement, the Foreign Ministry emphasized that Nigeria’s security operations are guided by civilian protection, national unity, and equal treatment of all citizens regardless of faith or ethnicity. The ministry said extremist violence remains a threat to Christians, Muslims, and other communities alike, rejecting any framing that presents the conflict as a religious extermination campaign.

Officials warned that portraying counterterrorism operations as faith-based retaliation could inflame communal tensions in Africa’s most populous country, where religious and ethnic diversity is tightly interwoven with local politics and security dynamics.

Who Bears the Brunt of Violence

Researchers and civil society groups have repeatedly challenged claims of a Christian genocide in Nigeria. Armed groups such as Islamic State affiliates and Boko Haram have carried out attacks across the northeast and northwest, killing civilians indiscriminately. Many of the worst-affected areas, including large parts of Borno State, are predominantly Muslim.

Analysts note that casualty patterns show no exclusive religious targeting, with Muslim communities often constituting a majority of victims in regions where insurgent activity is most intense. Nigerian officials say reducing the conflict to a religious binary obscures its drivers, which include insurgency, banditry, and local power struggles.

Political Framing and External Risks

Abuja has spent months countering narratives that seek to justify foreign intervention on religious grounds, arguing that such claims distort realities on the ground. Officials caution that importing culture-war language into Nigeria’s security crisis risks amplifying extremist propaganda and exposing civilians of all faiths to greater harm.

For the Nigerian government, cooperation with the United States remains focused on degrading armed groups and restoring security, not validating claims that recast a complex insurgency as a sectarian war.