Last week, President Trump announced on social media that he is designating Nigeria a “country of particular concern” due to the “mass slaughter” of Christians at the hands of militant Islamist groups. He then instructed US military leadership to prepare for possible military action in Nigeria.
The President warned that “[i]f the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the USA will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.”
President Trump’s warnings immediately raise two pressing questions: (1) is there a mass slaughter of Christians happening in Nigeria?; (2) if so, would it be right for the US to use military force against the perpetrators of the slaughter?
As multiple news outlets were quick to point out in response to President Trump’s posts, the violence committed by Nigeria’s radical Islamist groups such as Fulani militants, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP), has not been exclusively targeted at Christians. Indeed, these terrorist groups have targeted moderate Muslims as well as Christians. But the fact that they are equal opportunity terrorists makes the violations of religious freedom in Nigeria more severe, not less.
According to the Nigerian human rights organization, The International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), more than 125,000 Christians and 60,000 Muslims in Nigeria were killed between 2009 and 2023, while more than 19,000 Christian churches were shut down or destroyed. In 2025 alone, 7,000 Nigerian Christians have been murdered and some 7,800 have been kidnapped by Fulani jihadists. (The Open Doors World Watch List 2025 report has the 2025 numbers somewhat lower, but still alarming: 3100 Christians killed, 2830 abducted, and 1000 raped or sexually abused.)
The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 stipulates that “[t]he President shall designate each country the government of which has engaged in or tolerated” particularly severe violations of religious freedom as a “country of particular concern for religious freedom.”
Although Nigerian President Bola Tinubu has publicly condemned the perpetrators of violence in Nigeria, stating that “Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it,” his government’s efforts to curb the ongoing slaughter of Christians and Muslims by extremist groups have so far been unsuccessful. Now that the US State Department has officially updated Nigeria’s status as a “country of particular concern,” it is important to consider whether a military intervention by the United States might be justified.
The Just War tradition requires that to engage in war justly, a nation must have a “just cause.” While the paradigm just cause for war is unjust aggression by an enemy nation, military ethicists have recognized a right—indeed a responsibility—for the nations of the world to intervene militarily when the government of a sovereign nation is complicit in or incapable of stopping severe atrocities. In 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty issued their report titled “Responsibility to Protect.” The report explains that,
“In the Commission’s view, military intervention for human protection purposes is justified in two broad sets of circumstances, namely in order to halt or avert:
❏ Large scale loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or
❏ Large scale “ethnic cleansing,” actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.
If either or both of these conditions are satisfied, it is our view that the “just cause” component of the decision to intervene is amply satisfied.”
The Commission intentionally left the phrase “large scale” vague, but the report’s authors indicated that they have in mind the kind of atrocities that “shock the conscience of mankind.” While Christians are not the only group being targeted by Islamic extremists in Nigeria, and while not all of the violence in Nigeria is religiously motivated, the death tolls from recent years should shock the conscience of mankind. If we are not shocked by mass killings and abductions of tens of thousands of Christians and moderate Muslims by Islamic extremists, then perhaps we are losing our sense of humanity. Perhaps our moral consciences need an intervention.
Given the large-scale loss of life—bordering on ethno-religious cleansing—that is occurring in Nigeria, an international responsibility to protect clearly applies here. But whether the President has a basis in US law to authorize military intervention is a separate question and would depend on the nature, duration, and scope of the intervention. Under the United States Constitution, the President cannot act unless authorized to do so by a federal statute or the Constitution itself. Presidents have sometimes authorized military action without specific congressional approval, essentially acting on their constitutional authority as commander in chief of the nation’s armed forces.
For example: in 1994, President Clinton deployed 20,000 troops to Haiti; in 1995 he committed a similar number of ground troops to Bosnia; and in 2011, President Obama initiated air strikes and enforced a no-fly zone in Libya, all without specific congressional approval. These were limited engagements justified by reference to specific national interests–protecting US personnel and property, reinforcing US treaty obligations (such as NATO) or UN Security Council resolutions, and preventing regional instability that could threaten other US interests.
Yet broader humanitarian concerns played a role, too. In the 2011 airstrikes, for example, President Obama observed that Libya’s autocratic ruler, Muammar Qadhafi, was “causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people,” “forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries,” and threatening regional stability. The President concluded, “Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection.”
In Nigeria’s case, Congress has not (yet) authorized the use of military force, and the President has not (at least publicly) articulated what an intervention might entail, despite his suggestion that guns will be “a-blazing.” In a statement on November 5, 2025, President Trump called on the House Appropriations Committee “to look into this matter and report back to me.” Whether that signals his intent to seek congressional authorization (and for what) remains unclear.
In addition to considering the Constitutional provisions for US military intervention, it is also important to note the International Commission’s strong preference in favor of the “norm of non-intervention.” If the government of Nigeria can put an end to the violence on their own, that would be preferable to a US military intervention.
Alternatively, if the Nigerian government is willing to work together with the US in a cooperative effort to stop the perpetrators of this unthinkable slaughter, then the US should not use military force unilaterally, out of respect for Nigeria’s sovereignty.
But if the Nigerian government is unable or unwilling to act quickly and decisively to quell these atrocities, then the US and other nations that share our commitment to protecting religious freedom and human rights around the world, have not only a right, but indeed a responsibility to intervene.
