Far from it: we are not advocating the interests of Americans; we are advocating the interests of Nigerians in rural communities whose pain and cry for help have been ignored for too long.  We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated to keeping silent because we are afraid that we might be branded “enabling American interests.” We do not have any political agenda.  Our interests in Nigerians who are needlessly killed every day, when our nation is not at war!

It is not what the President says at the meeting that would matter more, except that you are a president driven more by media optics.  What President Tinubu does to demonstrate that ACTION against the terrorists is paramount to his government is what would qualify him to seek partnership. To seek such “partnership” in the absence of what you have done and are doing is to abdicate responsibility at home and ask others to come and do what you should rightly be doing.

Not necessarily. The designation is a call for change, not punishment.

It signals the U.S. may engage more diplomatically or condition certain aid on improvements in human rights. It could also lead to increased support for civil society and humanitarian groups working to protect vulnerable Nigerians.
💬 Should the international community do more to hold Nigeria accountable?

Conflicting stories exist to confuse and distract from the real issues. If a neighbour brought a matter that threatens to disintegrate your family to your attention, should be speculating and worried about the neighbour’s unspoken motive, or should you be actively trying to fix the problem, which you yourself have acknowledged to be true? If we solve our problems ourselves, as governments should, then there will be no excuse for an external interest to poke their nose into our non-extent problem!

Answers to this type of question can only be speculative and even distract from seeking solutions we ourselves can work out. The US government, under the now defunct USAID, spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the promotion of peace and dialogue, education, etc. Nothing tangible came out of those efforts.  Certainly, the message should be unity, not division— protecting human life and freedom for everyone, regardless of belief.

Well… but do we have concrete evidence that any of “his allies in the Middle East” may be indirectly funding extremism in Nigeria? Please recall that one of these allies gave Nigeria a head-start and provided a list of names of funders about which nothing has been done up to today. So, to your question, yes, if evidence shows that any Middle East allies is indirectly funding extremism, Trump should apply the same standards and sanctions to them. Counterterrorism credibility depends on consistent action — addressing all sources of extremist financing, regardless of political or strategic alliances

Yes, it’s important to focus on where the money and arms for terrorism come from.  But that is not our role at PSK-UK.  It is the role of the government who have such high-level confidential information.  For the most part, such information comes to us as “hearsay”; until we get our hands on hard evidence of verified data, we cannot “direct” the US attention anywhere. However, we can continue to stress the evil and highlight the human cost of terrorism. Encourage cooperation, not blame, showing how stopping such funding benefits global peace and security.

President Donald Trump’s recent public statements and policy moves have prioritized religious-freedom framing that emphasizes violence against Christian communities, and his administration (and allied U.S. actors) have re-designated Nigeria under U.S. religious-freedom laws that target “severe violations” — a political decision that foregrounds Christian victims even though analysts and commentators all accept that the violence is more complex and victims do extend beyond Christians. 

Donald Trump has simply indicated the particular ‘previously un-sufficiently acknowledged and un-addressed’ element that fits into his communication paradigm however, the eradication of terrorists and terrorism from Nigeria will make Nigeria safer for all – Christians and non-Christians.

The U.S. response has escalated recently because of a combination of (a) renewed political pressure from U.S. lawmakers, advocacy groups and media highlighting attacks on Christian communities, (b) accumulated reporting by commissions and NGOs documenting worsening religious-freedom conditions, and (c) a policy choice by the current U.S. administration to use tools under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) now (e.g., CPC designation, threats of visa restrictions or sanctions). The CPC designation itself is a legal/policy tool that can be (re)applied when the U.S. determines “severe violations” have occurred; political timing and domestic U.S. politics help explain why it was used now. This is, however, not the first time that the U.S. is taking action on this matter.