For the second time in five years, Nigeria has been designated a “country of particular concern” by the US government, in both cases by President Donald Trump. The first time was in 2020 but the designation was removed in 2021.

The November 2025 redesignation can be traced to, among other things, a campaign by US congressman Riley Moore, who alleged that there was an “alarming and ongoing persecution of Christians” in Nigeria.

Nigeria refuted this claim. President Bola Tinubu, in a statement, argued that the US characterisation of Nigeria did not reflect the country’s reality or values.

But what does the designation mean for Nigeria? And what should Nigeria’s response be? As a scholar who has studied Nigeria’s insecurity and identity crises, I have some suggestions.

Nigeria must prevent the diplomatic row with the US from progressing further, and act decisively against insecurity for all Nigerians.

To achieve this, the Nigerian government should look beyond military capability. The country needs governance and administrative restructuring that empowers sub-national and local authorities to address local issues. This bottom-up approach will address insecurity better than the current top-down approach.

What ‘country of particular concern’ means

The classification of a country as being of particular concern is outlined in the United States International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. Under section 402 of the act, “country of particular concern” is a designation given to a foreign country whose government has engaged in or tolerated especially severe violations of the religious freedom of its citizens.

By this definition, a country may not be directly involved in violating its citizens’ religious freedom, but culpable for not acting decisively against those who do.

For a country to be classified as such, it is first placed on a special watch list. This allows for an assessment of whether there is a serious violation of religious freedom.

The designation is part of US foreign policy for promoting human rights globally.

Why Nigeria was given this status

Nigeria was designated a country of particular concern because of allegations of “genocide” against Christians there. Since Nigeria’s independence in 1960, identity conflicts have become a common occurrence. But there’s a new dimension with the emergence of terror groups and intensifying farmer-herder disputes.

A study I conducted in early 2025 revealed that between 2010 and 2022, a total of 230 attacks specifically targeted Christians, 82 of which were between 2019 and 2022.

Several other attacks, such as the Runji killing in Kaduna State in April 2023, the Apata and Yelwata massacres in Benue State in March and June 2025, respectively, and the Mangu killings in Plateau State, have also taken place.

This shows that there are targeted attacks against Christians in parts of Nigeria. But they are a fraction of the attacks and killings carried out by non-state armed groups in the country.

As one study argued, Christians make up roughly half of Nigeria’s population, but attacks explicitly directed against them account for about 5% of total reported violent incidents.

Therefore, framing Nigeria’s insecurity in terms of anti-Christian violence alone oversimplifies the broader dynamics of the country’s national insecurity.

How this will affect Nigeria

The International Religious Freedom Act stipulates 15 required sanctions under section 405(a). Section 407 allows the president of the US to waive these sanctions based on national interest or to further the purpose of the act. For this reason, in most cases, the designation is seldom followed by sanctions.

Several countries have been exempted from sanctions even when designated as countries of particular concern. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have been repeatedly designated but the US has never sanctioned them.

Even Nigeria’s designation in 2020 was not followed by sanctions. The US continued to provide security assistance, military cooperation and development aid to Nigeria. The US only used the period of designation to call for improved protection of religious communities and accountability for perpetrators.

For the recent designation, however, Trump has threatened to cut aid to Nigeria and take military action against terrorists in Nigeria.

The US, through the US Agency for International Development, provided development assistance worth US$7.89 billion between 2015 and 2024 to support health, education, economic and humanitarian development. But all of that has reduced since the scrapping of the agency and a drop in foreign aid.

US security aid to Nigeria remains significant. It approved sales of sophisticated precision military weapons worth US$346 million to Nigeria and has offered training support for Nigerian soldiers.

The US could end that deal, but that would undermine Nigeria’s ability to address terrorism and general security challenges. It would counter the purpose of the International Religious Freedom Act. Therefore, I believe the US may waive this.

Direct military intervention in Nigeria is becoming a possibility and Trump is most likely going to do it without respect for Nigeria’s sovereignty. He has ordered the US Department of War to draw up plans, and they have come up with options. But I do not see this solving the problem of insecurity in Nigeria. It may instead lead to the dispersal of terrorists, complicating Nigeria’s insecurity. Or terrorists might increase mass kidnappings and hostage-taking for shields.

How Nigeria should respond

Nigeria must prevent diplomatic rows with the US because they are partners in the fight against terrorism. A discussion about how the US can improve Nigeria’s capacity to address its security challenges would be a good step.

Furthermore, Nigeria’s limited capacity to safeguard lives and property points to deeper structural and governance challenges. The country’s security architecture is too centralised and works top-down. This makes it harder for sub-national and local authorities to provide security and address the drivers of violence at the local level.

Nigeria should go beyond improving its military response. To enhance security, it also needs to reform its governance and administrative structures.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Saheed Babajide Owonikoko, Modibbo Adama University of Technology

Read more:

Saheed Babajide Owonikoko does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.