Concerns are growing over Nigeria’s security partnership with the United States as U.S. lawmakers push forward a spending bill that introduces stricter requirements for continued American assistance.
The measure, passed by the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, links future security aid to clear results in curbing violence, with particular attention on areas impacted by attacks against Christian populations.
Riley Moore, a leading supporter of the proposal, criticised the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, arguing that it has not done enough to confront rising insecurity, especially in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region.
Nigeria continues to grapple with ongoing violence involving ethnic militias, armed criminal groups, and extremist organisations.
According to Moore, the situation demands urgent action, stressing that the United States cannot overlook the worsening crisis.
For years, U.S. security assistance has played a role in supporting Nigeria’s counterterrorism efforts against groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), primarily through training programmes, intelligence cooperation, and limited military backing.
Washington’s ties with Nigeria remain one of its most significant in sub-Saharan Africa, given the country’s influence as the continent’s largest economy and most populous nation.
Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023, the United States disbursed around $5 million through International Military Education and Training (IMET), along with approximately $500,000 under the Africa Military Education Program since 2016 to strengthen Nigeria’s defence institutions.
During the later years of Donald Trump’s administration, U.S. engagement with Nigeria took a more assertive tone, with increased attention on insecurity and claims of religious persecution.
That period combined diplomatic pressure, including threats of aid reduction and possible military involvement, with limited intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation.
Subsequently, relations shifted toward a more collaborative approach, with the U.S. focusing on intelligence sharing, training, and advisory roles in support of Nigerian-led operations rather than direct intervention.
Even so, concerns about civilian casualties, human rights issues, and accountability have led to a more cautious overall engagement.
Some American officials have increasingly interpreted parts of the conflict through a religious lens, prompting a gradual move toward aid conditions tied to governance reforms, civilian protection, and humanitarian access.
The new legislative proposal introduces specific requirements Nigeria must meet before receiving security funding.
These include improving responses to violence, ensuring prosecution of offenders, prioritising support for displaced persons, and enabling their safe return to affected communities.
It further calls for U.S. assistance to focus on preventing atrocities, safeguarding religious freedom, prosecuting armed actors such as Fulani militias, criminal gangs, and jihadist groups, and strengthening oversight of both police and security agencies.
Additional measures emphasise humanitarian relief, support for faith-based organisations in conflict zones, and the disarmament of armed groups.
The bill also expands oversight mechanisms significantly.
Under its provisions, Nigeria would be placed under enhanced monitoring, requiring the U.S. Secretary of State to submit detailed spending plans for all allocated funds, which would be subject to direct congressional scrutiny.
Riley Moore noted that every dollar directed to Nigeria would fall under strict legislative review as part of the new framework.
If approved into law, the proposal could redefine U.S.–Nigeria security cooperation, increasing pressure on Abuja to demonstrate tangible progress in reducing violence, protecting civilians, and restoring stability in affected regions.