The recent redesignation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) under the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) has intensified an already complex moment in U.S.–Nigeria relations. U.S. military strikes on Christmas that targeted an ISIS-affiliated terrorist group in northwest Nigeria, which the U.S. accused of persecuting Christians, further illustrates complicated and evolving dynamics. This moment, while fraught, also presents an opportunity for renewed diplomatic engagement and a reinvigorated approach to how the United States understands and interacts with religious dynamics abroad. Strategic religious engagement, woven quietly into diplomacy, development, and defense, has played a meaningful role in advancing U.S. interests and supporting stability in Nigeria. The question now is how to sustain and evolve that work in a turbulent context.
Nigeria’s challenges are severe and multifaceted. It faces violent extremism, widespread insecurity, governance failures, and deep social mistrust. The country’s new CPC status also places at risk various forms of U.S. partnership and assistance. Religion, ethnicity, and identity shape Nigerian life in profound ways, but they are rarely the sole drivers of violence. The tendency, particularly in international discourse, to compress Nigeria’s complexities into a single narrative of Christian persecution obscures what is happening on the ground. To build a constructive path forward, the United States needs a more textured understanding of the Nigerian context and a more intentional approach to engaging the religious actors who remain central to Nigeria’s civic fabric.
Why Religion Matters in Nigeria
Nigeria is one of the world’s most religiously vibrant countries. Its overwhelmingly Christian south and predominantly Muslim north have lived side‑by‑side for generations; many families span multiple traditions. Religious identity is powerful, but it intersects with political competition, land disputes, poverty, and historical grievances. When violence erupts, it is often driven less by theology than by governance failures and deeply entrenched inequalities.
While attacks targeting religious communities have occurred—indeed Christian communities, especially in the Middle Belt, have suffered deeply—data shows that explicitly religiously motivated killings represent a small share of overall violence. Many of the worst atrocities are carried out by groups whose victims are overwhelmingly Muslim. Narratives that reduce Nigeria’s insecurity to a “war on Christians” miss the broader crisis: a fracturing state unable to meet citizens’ basic security needs.
This is where a strategic approach to engaging religious actors can help. Religious leaders in Nigeria remain among the country’s most trusted figures. Surveys consistently show they are viewed as less corrupt and more connected to community needs than political institutions. They can clarify misconceptions, mobilize peace efforts, and work across divides when political actors cannot or will not do so.
What the U.S. Has Already Done Quietly and Constructively
Over the last two decades, the U.S. has invested heavily in Nigeria: in counterterrorism cooperation, governance programs, civil society partnerships, humanitarian aid, and peacebuilding. Alongside these efforts, diplomatic, military, and development teams have often drawn explicitly and implicitly on religious actors and dynamics. They have worked with religious leaders to de-escalate tensions, supported interfaith peace networks, and partnered with community organizations to prevent violence.
In my own experience working in Nigeria, these locally rooted peacebuilding efforts have been among the most effective U.S.-supported programs on the ground. They involve Muslim and Christian leaders standing alongside civic actors to create early warning systems, counter inflammatory rhetoric, and mediate disputes before they spiral. Many of these programs cost little compared to large security investments, yet they produce immense dividends, which have strengthened trust, prevented violence, and built community resilience.Unfortunately, some of these initiatives have been reduced or eliminated due to development cuts in recent years. Their absence is felt acutely in regions like the Middle Belt, where early intervention can mean the difference between simmering tensions and mass casualties.
Strategic Religious Engagement for Nigeria Today
The CPC redesignation has produced varying responses in Nigeria. Some Christian groups feel seen, while others fear it oversimplifies their situation and risks inflaming tensions. Many Nigerians, Christian and Muslim, worry about the potential for U.S. statements to be misinterpreted locally or exploited by extremists. And nearly everyone is concerned that heavy‑handed rhetoric and U.S. military intervention could undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty or embolden actors who wish to destabilize the country.
If the U.S. wants to support stability and protect vulnerable communities, a more holistic, strategic, and nuanced approach is needed, learning from past efforts and adapting them for today. Nigeria should seize this moment to honestly address institutional weaknesses in its security, judicial, and conflict prevention systems that have hampered its capacity to end the killings and hold perpetrators accountable. The U.S. should maintain open lines for engagement, dialogue, and cooperation with the Nigerian government and the Nigerian people, and its approach should include a better understanding of Nigeria’s complexities.
The following are recommendations for the U.S.:
- Engage deeply and broadly with communities across Nigeria to better understand the nuances driving the conflicts in the country. While religion should not be dismissed as a factor in conflict, it is unproductive to frame Nigeria’s violence as solely religious or to single out one group as the primary victim. The root causes of insecurity are deeper and more complex, with violence better understood as a symptom rather than the cause of instability. Any constructive U.S. role must avoid selective intervention and clearly demonstrate concern for all Nigerians, across religions and regions, to avoid worsening sectarian divisions.
- Prioritize security governance to help tackle the violence. The U.S. should reassess its security cooperation with Nigeria and work with Nigerian counterparts to prioritize security governance and meaningful reform. Future assistance, including training and equipment, should be conditioned on demonstrated progress, with an emphasis on long-term partnership beyond the military, including intelligence sharing, rule of law, and governance. Support should focus on initiatives most likely to drive change, including local and non-governmental efforts, while recognizing that Nigeria’s political and security leaders bear significant responsibility for ongoing challenges.
- Support local actors that are advancing inclusive peace and conflict resolution. Nigeria’s civil society is strong, and religious leaders are widely viewed as more trustworthy than public institutions. Peacebuilding programs that support moderate religious leaders, community networks, and civic actors, particularly through early warning systems and balanced messaging, can help prevent crises and shift focus toward sustainable solutions. These community-led efforts have proven effective and low-cost, especially in the Middle Belt, but recent cuts and threats to development assistance risk undermining their impact.
- Work more with Nigeria’s disparate states and its growing city centers. Nigeria’s 36 states play a powerful role in shaping political and security outcomes and merit tailored engagement. The U.S. should decentralize its approach by strengthening partnerships with state and local leaders, particularly in receptive regions such as the Middle Belt. Engagement should go beyond security assistance to link economic development with peacebuilding, addressing root causes of conflict through economic revitalization, institutional reform, and business-led initiatives.
- Rethink reactive quick-win actions that may seem beneficial to Nigerians but could have larger and far-reaching negative impacts. U.S. military action risks deepening religious polarization, undermining interfaith efforts, fueling extremism, and increasing insecurity, potentially endangering the very communities such actions claim to protect. Even such rhetoric has empowered extremists and fueled divisive discourse. Rather than reacting to crises, the U.S. should pursue proactive, long-term engagement that strengthens institutions and addresses underlying drivers of instability.
The Path Forward
The CPC designation and subsequent increased U.S. interest and engagement in Nigeria forces an uncomfortable but necessary reassessment. It highlights the severity of Nigeria’s security challenges, but it also cautions how the U.S. interprets religious dynamics abroad. As someone who has seen Nigeria’s complexities firsthand, and who believes deeply in the importance of U.S.–Nigeria partnership, I see this as a moment to build upon and refine our engagement.
The United States has already laid important groundwork. It has built relationships with religious leaders, supported interfaith peace efforts, and invested in programs that strengthen trust between communities. These efforts may not always carry the label “strategic religious engagement,” but their impact is clear: they reduce violence, empower local actors, and advance U.S. interests in stability, prosperity, and democratic governance.
The path forward is not to abandon these efforts but to deepen them quietly, carefully, and collaboratively. Nigeria is at a crossroads, and so is the U.S. approach to engaging one of its most important partners in Africa. By grounding our engagement in humility, nuance, and genuine partnership, we can help build the conditions for a more peaceful, united, and resilient Nigeria.
This text was adapted from Oge Onubogu’s statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa on November 20, 2025. The full testimony is available here.
