Country of Particular Concern: Lessons from Donald Trump’s Homily By Taiwo Adisa

Nigeria’s Political Landscape Shaken by U.S. Redesignation as a “Country of Particular Concern”

On October 31, 2025, Nigeria, the most populous black nation globally, was officially redesignated by the United States as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC). This announcement, made by then U.S. President Donald Trump via his social media platform Truth Social, sent ripples through Nigeria’s political circles. Trump cited the ongoing violence against Christians in Nigeria as the primary reason for this designation, signaling potential U.S. intervention to combat terrorism within the country.

Early Warnings and Missed Opportunities

The decision did not come abruptly. Weeks before the official announcement, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz publicly accused unnamed Nigerian officials of complicity in the mass killings of Christians. This accusation heightened fears that Nigeria might be placed back on the CPC list, yet the Nigerian government’s response was fragmented and lacked a unified strategy to address the looming threat.

Shortly after Senator Cruz’s remarks, Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto addressed the issue at the Vatican. He urged the U.S. not to designate Nigeria as a CPC, emphasizing the progress made under President Bola Tinubu’s administration compared to the previous eight years under the late President Muhammadu Buhari. Bishop Kukah highlighted that while security challenges persist, labeling Nigeria as a CPC could undermine ongoing efforts by religious leaders to promote unity and religious freedom.

The Impact of Religious and Political Communication

Bishop Kukah warned that the CPC designation might exacerbate tensions, sow distrust, and hinder dialogue between religious groups and the government. He advocated for increased vigilance by organizations like the Association of Christian Interfaith Networks (ACIN) and civil society groups to combat impunity and violence.

Unfortunately, his message was overshadowed by public commentators who downplayed the severity of the violence by pointing out that victims were not exclusively Christians. Such responses likely fueled frustration among American policymakers, contributing to the firm stance taken by President Trump.

Lessons in Political Communication and Governance

This episode underscores the critical role of effective political communication. Nigerian leaders, often unprepared for the complexities of public office, failed to present a cohesive narrative or demonstrate decisive action. Communication theorist Paul Watzlawick’s axiom that “you cannot not communicate” rings true here; silence or mixed signals from Nigerian officials were interpreted as indifference or inability to address the crisis.

Consequently, the U.S. administration perceived Nigeria as unwilling or incapable of curbing violence, prompting the CPC redesignation. The aftermath saw a flurry of conspiracy theories suggesting ulterior motives behind America’s decision, including alleged interests in Nigeria’s vast natural resources. However, the reality is that the violence affects Nigerians indiscriminately, transcending religious lines and devastating communities across states like Benue, Plateau, Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno.

Humanitarian Crisis and the Plight of Internally Displaced Persons

The ongoing conflict has forced countless Nigerians into Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps, living in precarious conditions far from their homes and livelihoods. Despite the scale of this humanitarian crisis, questions remain about the government’s plans to rehabilitate these displaced populations and close the camps. These concerns were notably absent from Senator Cruz’s statements but remain central to understanding the full scope of Nigeria’s security challenges.

Government Response and Accountability

It was not until November 5, 2025, that the Nigerian government, through the Minister of Information and National Orientation, provided concrete data on counterterrorism efforts: 17,000 terror suspects arrested and undergoing trial, 13,500 terrorists neutralized, and nearly 10,000 victims rescued. While these figures offer some reassurance, they cannot undo the loss of lives or fully restore public confidence.

Transparency and timely communication are essential components of democratic governance. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s recent administrations have often been criticized for their reticence. The late President Buhari’s government was marked by limited public engagement, a trend only slightly improved under President Tinubu. This contrasts sharply with the frequent media interactions typical of U.S. presidents, which foster greater public trust and accountability.

Moving Forward: The Imperative of Open Dialogue and Vigilance

The ongoing saga between the U.S. and Nigeria highlights the necessity for Nigerian leaders to embrace proactive communication strategies. Silence or delayed responses risk creating negative perceptions domestically and internationally. Engaging citizens regularly about government initiatives, challenges, and successes can build resilience and unity.

For terrorists and their backers, the message is clear: the international community, including the U.S., is prepared to act decisively. The proverb “if the home does not train a child, the street will” aptly captures the urgency of addressing internal security threats before external forces intervene.

Ultimately, Nigeria’s path to peace and stability depends on cohesive leadership, transparent governance, and sustained collaboration between religious, political, and civil society actors. Only through these means can the nation hope to overcome the scourge of violence and restore hope to its citizens.