U.S. airstrikes on ISIS targets in Nigeria, timed deliberately for Christmas to send a message to jihadists attacking Christians, show President Trump pushing American power outward again.
Story Highlights
- Trump ordered Christmas Day airstrikes on ISIS-linked targets in Nigeria, framing them as a defense of persecuted Christians.
- Nigeria publicly claimed it provided the key intelligence, signaling an unusually open counterterrorism partnership with Washington.
- Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth warned that more attacks are likely, whether in the form of terrorist reprisals or additional U.S. strikes.
- The operation marks a rare, overt U.S. kinetic action in Nigeria itself, deepening America’s role in West Africa’s fight against ISIS.
Trump’s Christmas Strikes And The Message To ISIS
President Donald Trump authorized U.S. military airstrikes on ISIS-linked targets inside Nigeria and chose to have them carried out on Christmas Day, explicitly to send a message to jihadist groups he says target Christians. He presented the timing not as a coincidence but as a deliberate signal that attacks on churches and Christian communities would be met with force. For many American conservatives, the move aligns with long-standing calls to prioritize protection of persecuted Christians abroad. These strikes fit squarely within Trump’s broader “war on radical Islam” approach, which rejects the euphemisms and hand-wringing of past administrations.
Nigeria’s Intelligence Role And An Unusual Public Partnership
The Nigerian government did something many foreign partners rarely do: it openly claimed that its security and intelligence services supplied the critical targeting information that made the U.S. strikes possible. Instead of quietly allowing Washington to take the spotlight, Abuja emphasized joint ownership of the operation, casting it as a partnership between sovereign allies rather than a unilateral American intervention. That public claim signals Nigeria wants credit at home for finally landing blows against ISIS-linked militants menacing its citizens.
For U.S. readers tired of endless talk about “nation-building” with little to show, this cooperation model looks very different from the open-ended quagmires of the past. Washington provided precision strike capability; Nigeria contributed local intelligence, access, and political consent.
Watch:
Hegseth’s Warning: Expect More Violence, Not Less
Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth, a veteran and frequent voice for military families and national security conservatives, reacted to the news by warning that more attacks are likely after the Nigeria operation. He was not suggesting the strikes lacked purpose; rather, he argued that ISIS franchises in West Africa typically absorb blows, adapt, and look for propaganda opportunities. His warning encompassed both potential jihadist reprisals on the ground and the likelihood of additional U.S. strikes to sustain pressure on these networks.
For an audience that remembers how ISIS morphed from an Iraqi insurgency into a global brand, Hegseth’s caution underscores a hard truth: one successful mission does not end the war. The pattern with jihadist groups is to lose territory, go to ground, recruit online, and probe for softer targets. That reality makes it essential that any expanded footprint in West African counterterrorism remain firmly tied to clear objectives, measurable gains, and strong constitutional oversight, so that tactical necessity does not drift into another open-ended, undefined campaign.
From Boko Haram To ISWAP: Why Nigeria Matters To U.S. Security
To understand why the U.S. is now striking inside Nigeria, conservatives need to look at how the threat evolved on the ground. Boko Haram’s brutal insurgency in Nigeria’s northeast, infamous for church attacks and mass kidnappings, eventually spawned a faction that pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and rebranded as Islamic State West Africa Province, or ISWAP. That affiliate became a formal ISIS branch in the Lake Chad region, attacking security forces, civilians, and Christian communities while broadcasting its allegiance to the global caliphate project.
What This Means For American Conservatives At Home
For conservatives frustrated by years of globalist adventures and half-hearted fights against terror, this operation raises a key question: can Washington use hard power in a way that protects American and Christian lives without sliding back into endless war or empowering unaccountable bureaucrats? The Nigeria strikes suggest one possible path—limited, intelligence-driven, allied operations with clear targets and symbolism—yet they also highlight the need for vigilance so that temporary missions do not quietly expand under the radar.
As this campaign unfolds, it will test core principles many on the right hold dear. The stakes are not just in distant Nigerian provinces—they reach directly into our debates over executive power, permanent war, and what it truly means to put America and its values first.
