As 2026 looms and the Trump White House sharpens its second-term foreign policy priorities, one critical test is unfolding far from Washington headlines: Nigeria’s escalating fight against violent extremist groups across West Africa.
The administration has made clear that it intends to narrow U.S. overseas commitments, prioritize the Western Hemisphere, and demand clearer returns on American security investments.
That recalibration is already reshaping U.S. engagement in Africa — and Nigeria sits squarely at the center of that shift. (RELATED: Media Denies Christian Genocide in Response to Trump’s Threat of Military Action in Nigeria)
With more than 220 million people, Africa’s largest economy, and a military stretched thin by Boko Haram, ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), and criminal insurgencies, Nigeria is both a security partner and a pressure point. How Washington handles Abuja will signal whether “America First” translates into disciplined realism — or strategic retrenchment with unintended consequences.
For more than a decade, U.S. policy in West Africa centered on counterterrorism: training Nigerian forces, sharing intelligence, and supporting regional coordination to prevent jihadist spillover across the Sahel. (RELATED: What Is America’s Role in Africa?)
That framework is now colliding with a broader Trump administration emphasis on great-power competition, border security, and domestic political priorities.
Yet “Africa policy,” while not abandoned, is clearly being subordinated to higher-visibility theaters — China, the Western Hemisphere, and economic security. (RELATED: China and Russia’s Economic Takeover in Africa: The Global Shift America Cannot Ignore)
Inside the administration, this has produced a familiar debate: whether limited U.S. resources are better spent maintaining partnerships in fragile regions or pulled back to avoid what officials privately describe as “open-ended security assistance with unclear outcomes.”
Nigeria illustrates that tension vividly.
The reality on the ground is more complex than Washington sound bites suggest.
President Trump’s recent rhetoric on Nigeria — including public criticism over religious violence and threats to reconsider aid — has resonated with parts of his political base.
But it has also unsettled U.S. diplomats and defense officials who see Nigeria less as a moral litmus test and more as a strategic hinge state.
The reality on the ground is more complex than Washington sound bites suggest.
Nigeria’s violence is driven by overlapping insurgencies and regional instability — not a single ideological conflict easily resolved through punitive diplomacy.
Abuja, for its part, has pushed back against what it views as external oversimplification, while still seeking deeper cooperation on intelligence, equipment, and regional stabilization.
Yet Nigerian officials privately worry that mixed signals from Washington could weaken coordination at a moment when extremist groups are becoming more mobile and decentralized.
Even under a narrower “America First” doctrine, Nigeria remains strategically relevant — the West African nation anchors the region. Simply put, its collapse or prolonged insecurity would reverberate across Niger, Benin, Cameroon, and beyond.
Further, extremist groups displaced from the Sahel are probing southward, exploiting governance gaps and porous borders. And they’re migrating to western borders quietly.
And finally, dissipated U.S. engagement creates openings for China, Russia, and Gulf states to expand security and infrastructure influence with fewer governance conditions attached.
None of this argues for large-scale U.S. troop deployments or nation-building. But it does argue against disengagement masked as realism.
A policy-savvy version of “America First” would recognize that selective engagement can be cheaper — and more effective — than strategic neglect.
That means prioritizing intelligence sharing and logistics, not broad military commitments; and ultimately, supporting regional coordination, which spreads costs and limits U.S. exposure.
Most importantly, it means clarity. Allies and adversaries alike are watching to see whether Trump’s foreign policy reset produces a consistent strategy — or simply transactional signals.
Nigeria is not the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy. But it is an early indicator.
If Washington can balance restraint with influence in West Africa, it strengthens the administration’s case that “America First” is not synonymous with retreat.
If it cannot, the consequences will be felt not just in Abuja, but across a region where instability rarely stays local.
For a White House intent on redefining U.S. leadership, Nigeria may be one of the first quiet tests — and one of the most revealing.
READ MORE from Duggan Flanakin:
