Dr. Abejide B. Olusegun
The recent rhetoric by the U.S. President, Donald Trump, drumming up threats to strike “Islamists” in Northern Nigeria, has been widely misinterpreted as a religious confrontation. In truth, it represents something far more complex and perilous: an economic and geopolitical struggle rooted in the expansion of the BRICS. The controversy is not about faith, oil, or internal Nigerian politics; it is about a global power struggle over who controls the world’s financial architecture and the future of international governance. Nigeria, under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has become the newest target in this ongoing struggle—a struggle that began when the creation of BRICS first challenged Western hegemony.
For decades, Western powers have maintained economic dominance through institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the global payment network known as SWIFT. These instruments allowed the United States and its G7 allies to impose economic compliance, dictate fiscal reforms, and—when necessary—cripple nonconforming nations by freezing their assets or restricting their access to dollars. The BRICS, comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, emerged as a counterweight to this system, aiming to create a multipolar world order in which developing nations could trade, finance, and govern independently of Western control. Nigeria’s growing engagement with BRICS is therefore not merely a foreign policy decision; it is a strategic redefinition of its economic sovereignty.
BRICS was born out of necessity. Its founding members sought to reform a global economic order that kept developing nations perpetually dependent. Collectively, the BRICS economies account for over 30 percent of global GDP, a share expected to surpass that of the G7 by the end of this decade. Central to their ambition is the creation of an alternative global currency system that would reduce the dominance of the U.S. dollar in international trade. Washington has viewed this as an existential threat.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Western countries demonstrated their ability to weaponize the global financial system. Nearly $700 billion of Russia’s foreign reserves were seized overnight. That act sent an unmistakable message to all developing countries: Western finance could turn any nation’s economy to dust in a matter of days. Had Russia not possessed strong alliances with China, India, Iran, and other BRICS-aligned nations, its economy would have collapsed. This incident confirmed what the BRICS founders had long understood—that financial sovereignty is the last form of true independence.
Donald Trump’s public vows to “deal decisively with every BRICS nation or supporter” that was not merely rhetorical; it was a declaration of economic warfare aimed at defending American dominance. In his worldview, countries aligning with BRICS are not partners but rather “enemies of America.” Labeling such nations as ideological or religious threats serves as a strategic smokescreen designed to justify intervention under the pretense of humanitarian protection. Nigeria’s involvement in this confrontation is a direct result of its growing diplomatic and economic ties with BRICS states.
To understand Trump’s hostility, one must first recognize the nature of American global power. Unlike the colonial empires of the past that relied on territorial conquest, modern U.S. influence is maintained through economic dependency. The dollar functions both as a currency and a tool of financial power, granting the United States leverage over international reserves, foreign investments, and trade settlements. When a nation resists Western policies, sanctions ensue—cutting it off from global markets, crippling its industries, and rendering its currency worthless.
Nigeria, like many African nations, has repeatedly witnessed this playbook in action. Western courts have entertained frivolous lawsuits by private actors seeking to seize Nigeria’s assets, including its foreign reserves, under the guise of contractual disputes. These tactics reveal the vulnerability of African economies to Western legal and financial manipulation. For this reason, countries in the Global South increasingly look to China, India, and other BRICS members as partners that do not impose political conditionalities on economic cooperation.
Donald Trump understands this shift as an existential threat to America’s global leverage. His approach, therefore, is to dismantle BRICS from within by targeting its key members and deterring potential recruits, such as Nigeria. His “America First” doctrine has evolved into an open campaign against the multipolar order, cloaked in the language of religious freedom and humanitarian intervention.
Trump’s actions reveal a consistent pattern: unable to confront BRICS militarily, he weaponizes trade, diplomacy, and public narratives to destabilize or intimidate its members. He began with China, launching a trade war under the pretense of protecting American industry. When tariffs failed to weaken Beijing’s influence, he targeted its technology sector, banning or seizing assets such as TikTok and Huawei. Next came India, sanctioned for continuing to purchase Russian oil despite Western embargoes. South Africa soon followed, accused of “killing Whites,” a claim entirely unsupported by evidence but effective in mobilizing Western outrage. Trump’s government went as far as recalling ambassadors and threatening sanctions against Pretoria.
Brazil was targeted next, with the U.S. imposing sanctions against judges involved in the conviction of Jair Bolsonaro and enforcing punitive tariffs on key Brazilian exports. Iran, long a geopolitical adversary, faced renewed nuclear sanctions and direct military strikes. The latest entry on this list is Nigeria, where Trump’s inflammatory statements about “Christian genocide” serve as a moral pretext for coercive diplomacy. His pattern is unmistakable: demonize, isolate, and destabilize any nation that aligns with or sympathizes with BRICS.
Nigeria’s outreach to BRICS under President Tinubu reflects a pragmatic shift rather than ideological alignment. Facing Western debt constraints, currency volatility, and a shrinking dollar-based reserve, Nigeria’s economic team recognizes the potential of a diversified global system. BRICS offers an alternative path for infrastructure financing, commodity exchange, and regional development, free from the conditionalities imposed by Western lenders. The West’s reaction, however, reveals that the issue is not Nigeria’s governance or human rights record—it is Nigeria’s refusal to remain an economic client state.
Donald Trump’s framing of Northern Nigeria’s insecurity as a religious war is a deliberate distortion. The country’s challenges with terrorism, banditry, and communal violence are complex and historically rooted, but are not driven by faith. By portraying the conflict as “Christian persecution,” Trump manufactures a moral justification for intervention—an approach reminiscent of U.S. interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. This narrative also fuels domestic polarization, aiming to divide Nigerians along religious lines and weaken national unity at a time when such unity is most essential.
President Tinubu’s response so far—calm, measured, and diplomatic—has prevented escalation. However, Nigeria’s government must move beyond reactive diplomacy toward proactive strategic communication. Several actions are essential.
First, Nigeria’s Ministry of Information and Foreign Affairs should issue a comprehensive statement debunking false narratives about religious persecution, using verified data from interfaith organizations, human rights bodies, and community networks. Transparency undercuts propaganda. Second, Nigeria should invite independent international observers, including those from the African Union, the United Nations, and the Vatican, to assess the situation firsthand. This demonstrates accountability and exposes the falsity of the “Christian genocide” claim.
Third, the Federal Government should intensify diplomatic engagement with the U.S. Department of State, emphasizing Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom. At the same time, it should coordinate with ECOWAS and the African Union to denounce external interference in the internal affairs of member states. Nigeria’s request for an emergency AU Security Council session would set a continental precedent: Africa will no longer tolerate intimidation disguised as humanitarian concern.
Nigeria must now redefine its global narrative. Instead of allowing Western media to dictate its narrative, it should launch an international diplomatic campaign that showcases interfaith cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Muslim and Christian leaders should appear jointly in public forums, condemning extremism and affirming national unity. The government should facilitate international coverage of peacebuilding initiatives and invite journalists to report directly from affected communities.
Simultaneously, Nigeria must diversify its diplomatic alliances. Deepening ties with BRICS nations, the European Union, and regional partners can reduce dependence on any single geopolitical bloc. Economic diversification—through trade agreements with Asia, Latin America, and intra-African partners—creates leverage in future negotiations. The ultimate goal is not confrontation with the U.S., but independence from its economic dictates.
The Tinubu administration must also strengthen domestic human rights monitoring. Establishing transparent reporting systems and making them publicly auditable will preempt external misinformation. When governance is transparent, propaganda loses its power.
The struggle Nigeria faces is emblematic of a larger continental awakening. Across Africa, nations are questioning why global institutions designed to promote development instead perpetuate dependency. The IMF’s structural adjustment programs of the 1980s and 1990s, once hailed as pathways to modernization, hollowed out domestic industries and entrenched poverty. By contrast, BRICS presents a model of mutual benefit—trade without interference, investment without political strings, and partnerships without subordination.
This new order challenges centuries of economic subjugation, yet it also threatens Western interests built upon old hierarchies, leading to geopolitical backlash. What we are witnessing is the modern equivalent of decolonization—not fought with rifles, but with currencies, data, and trade. The nations that control financial flows will shape the political order of the 21st century.
For the United States, defending the dollar’s dominance is synonymous with protecting the empire. For BRICS and the Global South, creating alternatives is a declaration of freedom. The ideological lines are clear: unipolar control versus multipolar cooperation. Nigeria now stands at the intersection of these competing visions.
Nigeria’s challenge is to maintain sovereignty without isolation. This requires a dual strategy: defending its national interests while avoiding unnecessary provocations. The Tinubu government should continue engaging multilaterally, strengthening ties with both Western and Eastern powers while emphasizing non-alignment. Diplomatic pluralism ensures that neither side can corner Nigeria.
Domestically, security reforms remain urgent. The same banditry and terrorism that outsiders exploit as propaganda must be confronted decisively. Transparency in military operations, investment in community policing, and interfaith peace initiatives will deny external actors any justification for interference. As Tinubu’s administration stabilizes the economy through monetary and fiscal reforms, it must now extend that decisiveness to the security sector.
Ultimately, Nigeria must reclaim its global narrative as a peaceful and pluralistic democracy. The real war is informational. Western media will continue to frame Nigeria through the lenses of corruption, religion, and instability. Countering that narrative requires credible storytelling rooted in facts, visible leadership, and consistent engagement with global institutions.
In conclusion, the recent threats against Nigeria are not about religion; they are about resistance to a global realignment that challenges Western economic dominance. BRICS has redefined the balance of power, and any African nation that seeks independence within this new order risks becoming a target. Donald Trump’s rhetoric, cloaked in humanitarian language, exposes the enduring racial and geopolitical double standards of Western diplomacy.
Nigeria’s path forward lies in strategic restraint, diplomatic clarity, and moral courage. President Tinubu must strike a balance between assertiveness and wisdom—defending national sovereignty without alienating global partners. The stakes extend beyond Nigeria; they concern Africa’s collective right to define its future without external coercion.
The age of colonial subjugation ended on paper long ago, but economic colonization persists—its weapons now are not guns but dollars. The nations that refuse to bow to this silent empire are not enemies of progress; they are architects of a fairer world. Nigeria must stand firm among them, not as a follower, but as a sovereign voice in the chorus of nations demanding justice, equality, and true independence in the emerging multipolar world.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com