A guest on MSNBC’s MS NOW suggested that President Trump’s decision to authorize U.S. military strikes against Islamic State affiliates in Nigeria was racially motivated violence — a claim conservative commentators quickly condemned as detached from the facts. The remarks come amid broader public debate over President Trump’s overseas counterterrorism policy and support for persecuted Christians abroad.
Morgan State University professor Jason Johnson appeared on The Weekend hosted by Eugene Daniels, asserting that the Trump administration used the Nigeria airstrikes as “another opportunity … to engage in violence in a brown country in order to flex their power.” Johnson questioned why President Trump would focus on Nigeria, given controversial comments he reportedly made about African nations in the past.
Conservative analysts defended the strikes as legitimate counterterrorism action, not racially motivated aggression. The U.S. airstrikes in northwest Nigeria’s Sokoto State targeted Islamic State (ISIS) militants at the request of the Nigerian government, with coordination from U.S. Africa Command. Multiple militant positions were hit, resulting in the reported deaths of numerous extremists tied to violent attacks in the region.
President Trump publicly framed the operation as a direct response to ongoing attacks — including on Christian communities in the region — that have driven the United States to increase pressure on extremist groups. Trump vowed that the U.S. would not allow terrorist violence to go unchecked, declaring that militants “got a very bad Christmas present” from U.S. forces engaged in the operation.
Nigerian government officials emphasized the collaborative nature of the strikes, stating the joint operation was aimed at disrupting terror networks and enhancing regional security rather than targeting specific religious groups. Nigerian authorities reiterated that violent extremism in their country affects Muslims and Christians alike, countering claims that the operation was entirely based on religious persecution narratives.
The broader context behind the action includes the Trump administration’s designation of Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act earlier this year over alleged persecution of Christians — a status that placed diplomatic pressure on the Nigerian government to address religious violence more forcefully. U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, warned of possible military involvement if protections for Christians were not strengthened, but also maintained the primary objective was to target violent extremist groups.
Critics across the political spectrum have seized on the strikes for different reasons. Some left-leaning media figures frame the action as interventionist or question the motives behind U.S. involvement in a distant conflict. By contrast, conservative voices argue President Trump’s intervention protects vulnerable religious minorities and disrupts terror networks that threaten U.S. security and global stability.
The debate illustrates the ideological divide over foreign policy and national security, with some media commentators equating military action abroad with broader cultural and racial critiques, while policymakers emphasize the defense of religious freedom and international cooperation against terrorism.
