As the United States ramps up its military presence in the Caribbean and debates the prospect of intervention in Nigeria, the Trump administration’s approach to foreign security crises is drawing scrutiny at home and abroad. In recent weeks, U.S. military actions and rhetoric have intensified on two continents, raising questions about motives, effectiveness, and the risks of escalation.
On Monday, November 10, 2025, the U.S. military conducted its 20th strike on a boat allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea, killing four people, according to a Pentagon official who spoke with Business Standard. This latest action brings the death toll from such strikes since September to 80. The operations, part of a newly christened mission called Operation Southern Spear, are unfolding as the Trump administration expands its naval footprint in South American waters.
The centerpiece of this buildup is the imminent arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier, which is expected to anchor a task force of nearly a dozen Navy ships and about 12,000 sailors and Marines. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, announcing the mission’s new name on Thursday, November 13, emphasized the “growing significance and permanence” of the U.S. military’s presence in the region.
According to official statements, the objective is to stem the flow of narcotics into the United States. The strikes have targeted vessels primarily in the Caribbean Sea but also in the eastern Pacific Ocean, both critical corridors for cocaine smuggling. However, U.S. authorities have not released evidence to support their claims that those killed were narcoterrorists. This lack of transparency has prompted lawmakers, including Republicans, to demand more information about the targets and legal justifications for the strikes.
Some observers, as noted by Business Standard, argue that the show of force is intended as much to intimidate Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as to fight drug trafficking. Maduro, who faces narcoterrorism charges in the U.S., has denounced the American campaign as a fabricated war against him. In response, Venezuela’s government has mobilized troops and civilians, bracing for possible U.S. attacks. The Trump administration, for its part, maintains that it is engaged in armed conflict with drug cartels, characterizing the targeted boats as being operated by foreign terror organizations “flooding America’s cities with drugs.”
The legal and strategic underpinnings of these actions remain contentious. Last week, Senator Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Hegseth briefed a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the rationale and strategy behind the strikes. Yet, on November 8, Senate Republicans voted down legislation that would have required congressional authorization for attacks on Venezuela, effectively preserving the president’s latitude to act unilaterally.
While the Caribbean campaign plays out, President Trump has also floated the prospect of U.S. military intervention in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation. Earlier this month, Trump suggested the U.S. might go into Nigeria “guns-a-blazing” to target “Islamic terrorists” accused of atrocities against Christians. This followed the State Department’s late October designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern for religious freedom—a move welcomed by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which had recommended the designation for years.
Nigerian leaders, however, have rejected what they see as a mischaracterization of their country’s complex security challenges. President Bola Tinubu and Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar have insisted that the violence in Nigeria is rooted in resource-based conflicts, not religious persecution. They have welcomed U.S. assistance against insurgents but stressed that any action must respect Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The security landscape in Nigeria is, indeed, multifaceted. Boko Haram and its ISIS-aligned offshoot, ISIS-West Africa, are active in the northeast, while armed gangs operate in the northwest. The Middle Belt region is plagued by farmer-herder conflicts—fundamentally disputes over land and water access between predominantly Muslim herders and Christian farmers. These tensions have been exacerbated by climate change and the breakdown of traditional conflict-resolution mechanisms, rather than by sectarian targeting.
Data cited by the BBC from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data repository estimates that about 53,000 civilians of all religions have died in targeted political violence in Nigeria since 2009. From 2020 to September 2025, Christians were specifically targeted in 384 incidents, resulting in 317 deaths—just a small fraction of the total fatalities. Meanwhile, killings attributed to Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa rose by 18 percent in the first half of 2025, reaching their highest level in five years.
Nigeria’s military, despite significant investments, faces persistent challenges: intelligence and logistics shortfalls, corruption, and inadequate equipment have hampered its ability to counter insurgencies and protect civilians. The failure of the so-called super camp strategy, intended to consolidate forces in fortified hubs, has left many communities vulnerable. The Abuja-based Center for Democracy and Development estimated in 2022 that $15 billion had been lost to fraudulent arms procurement deals over two decades. Tensions between the military and local populations remain high due to past abuses.
Oddly, despite its heightened concern for Nigeria’s security, the Trump administration earlier this year defunded programs focused on conflict mitigation and peacebuilding—initiatives that might have addressed some of the underlying drivers of violence. Instead, U.S. engagement has largely centered on arms sales and episodic training. In August, Nigeria received a $346 million precision-guided weapons package, adding to the 12 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft delivered in 2021. Joint exercises such as Flintlock and Obangame Express continue, and the U.S. provides support to the Multinational Joint Task Force in the region.
The narrative of Christian persecution in Nigeria has long been a fixture of U.S. domestic politics, particularly among evangelical voters who are a key part of Trump’s base. Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Marlin Stutzman have introduced bills to codify Nigeria’s designation as a Country of Particular Concern and to impose sanctions on Nigerian officials enforcing blasphemy laws. However, these bills have no cosponsors and are widely seen as symbolic gestures aimed at domestic audiences.
Diplomatic relations between the two countries are further complicated by Nigeria’s recall of its envoys in 2023 and President Tinubu’s absence from Washington since taking office. Enhanced engagement might have helped, but as BBC notes, the administration’s embrace of selective narratives over broader evidence has made persuasion difficult.
Within the Pentagon, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has considered a range of military options, from deepening cooperation with Nigerian forces to launching drone strikes from bases in Europe or Djibouti, or even deploying an aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Guinea. Each option is fraught with diplomatic, strategic, and operational hurdles. Nigeria’s government would likely resist any unilateral action, and the U.S. military would have to accept increased risks elsewhere if it diverted resources to Africa. Moreover, legal justifications for intervention—relying on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or the president’s Article II powers—are tenuous at best, as the protection of Christians is not directly linked to U.S. national security.
Ultimately, as BBC and Business Standard both suggest, the administration’s threats of military action in Nigeria and the Caribbean may be more political theater than practical policy. The structural roots of these conflicts—economic inequality, resource competition, and weak governance—are unlikely to be resolved by force. For Nigeria, one of Africa’s largest economies, diversifying partnerships may prove a more effective strategy as U.S. influence shifts. Meanwhile, the U.S. risks undermining its strategic interests by prioritizing spectacle over substance in its foreign policy.
The coming months will reveal whether the U.S. doubles down on military solutions or pivots toward more nuanced, collaborative approaches. For now, the world watches as rhetoric and reality collide on two distant, troubled shores.
