President Donald Trump spent Christmas night announcing that U.S. military forces had conducted "deadly strikes" against Islamic State fighters in northwest Nigeria, delivering on what he called a previous warning that there would be "hell to pay" if the killing of Christians continued.
"I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was," Trump wrote in a late Thursday post on Truth Social, adding that U.S. forces had "executed numerous perfect strikes" against "ISIS Terrorist Scum."
"Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper," the president continued, ending his announcement with: "May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues."
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) confirmed the operation, stating it had "conducted a strike at the request of Nigerian authorities in Sokoto State killing multiple ISIS terrorists." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posting on X, declared: "The @DeptofWar is always ready, so ISIS found out tonight — on Christmas. More to come…"
But the Christmas night announcement raises urgent questions: Did Trump just expand America's counterterrorism operations into a new theater without congressional authorization? Is the framing of Nigeria's conflict as "Christian persecution" accurate—or a dangerous oversimplification? And what happens when the Nigerian government, which insists attacks are about geography rather than religion, publicly disputes the American narrative?
The Strike: What We Know
According to AFRICOM, U.S. forces conducted airstrikes "at the request of Nigerian authorities" in Sokoto State, located in northwest Nigeria near the border with Niger. The operation targeted ISIS-affiliated militants and resulted in "multiple ISIS terrorists" killed.
Trump's announcement emphasized that the strikes were retaliation for the targeting and "vicious killing" of "primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not see for many years, and even Centuries!"
Defense Secretary Hegseth thanked the Nigerian government for its "support & cooperation" while warning "More to come..." if attacks continue.
As of publication, Nigerian officials have not formally commented on the reported strikes—a notable silence given that foreign military operations on sovereign territory typically generate immediate government responses, whether supportive or critical.
The timing is significant: Christmas night, when American forces conducting operations against ISIS militants creates powerful religious symbolism. Trump's message framed the strikes as defending Christians under attack, positioning the military action within a broader narrative of protecting religious minorities from radical Islamic terrorism.
The Context: Trump's Nigeria Threats
The Christmas strikes didn't come out of nowhere. Last month, Trump publicly accused Nigeria of failing to stop the persecution of Christians and ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for possible military action against the West African country. He also threatened to suspend U.S. aid to Nigeria.
That announcement was extraordinary. Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation, a major regional power, a significant oil producer, and traditionally a U.S. ally in counterterrorism operations. Threatening military action against such a country represents a dramatic shift in American policy.
Nigeria's response was carefully calibrated. The government said it welcomed U.S. help in fighting insurgents but emphasized that its "territorial integrity must be respected," according to Reuters—diplomatic language that translates to: "We'll accept cooperation, but not unilateral American military operations."
Yet that's apparently what happened on Christmas night: U.S. forces conducting strikes on Nigerian territory, announced first by the American president on social media rather than through formal diplomatic channels.
The Constitutional Question: Did Trump Need Congressional Authorization?
Here's the uncomfortable constitutional question: Does the president have authority to conduct military strikes in Nigeria without congressional approval?
The legal basis for U.S. counterterrorism operations stems primarily from the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed after 9/11 to target al-Qaeda and associated forces. Subsequent administrations have stretched that authorization to cover ISIS, despite ISIS being a splinter group that al-Qaeda disavowed.
But does the 2001 AUMF—now 24 years old and never updated—authorize strikes in Nigeria? Legal scholars and members of Congress have questioned the expansive interpretation of AUMF that allows presidents to conduct military operations in countries Congress never contemplated when passing the authorization.
Trump didn't seek congressional approval for the Nigeria strikes. He didn't notify congressional leadership in advance (or if he did, they haven't publicly acknowledged it). He simply ordered the operation, conducted it, and announced it on social media Christmas night.
This pattern—presidents unilaterally expanding military operations without congressional authorization—has been building for decades across multiple administrations. But each expansion sets precedent for the next, gradually eroding Congress's constitutional role in declaring war and authorizing military force.
Follow ZOSIO for updates on U.S. military operations in Nigeria and analysis of Trump's expanding use of military force without congressional authorization.