491Conditioning Nigeria assistance is bipartisan---it's already law.
HR 7457 26 — 119th Congress. Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026, introduced by Rep. Riley Moore. Congress.gov, “H.R.7457 — Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026,” https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7457/text Clopus
(5) there is bipartisan congressional support to consider appropriate security cooperation with Nigeria, including conditioning of foreign assistance as was done in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill signed into law by President Trump as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, to enhance efforts to protect innocent lives;
(6) the United States should deliver humanitarian assistance, co-funded by the Government of Nigeria, through trusted civil society organizations, including faith-based organizations, in Nigeria’s middle belt states;
(7) the Department of State and the Department of the Treasury should impose targeted sanctions, including visa bans and asset freezes under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on individuals or entities responsible for severe religious freedom violations, or report to Congress the reasons such sanctions have not been imposed, including—
492The Senate has frozen a Nigeria sale before---nobody paid for it.
Onyedinefu 21 — Godsgift Onyedinefu. July 29. Abuja correspondent covering government and politics for BusinessDay. BusinessDay, “US Congress halts $875m arms sale to Nigeria over human rights concerns,” https://businessday.ng/news/article/us-congress-halts-875m-arms-sale-to-nigeria-over-human-rights-concerns/ Clopus
U.S. lawmakers are holding down proposed sale of attack helicopters to Nigeria amid mounting concerns about the Nigerian government’s human rights record as its military grapples with multiple security crises at once.
Nigeria recently took delivery of six tucano aircraft valued at $500 million from the US, but a report by Foreign Policy revealed that top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have delayed clearing a proposed sale of 12 AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters and accompanying defense systems to the Nigerian military, pausing a deal worth some $875 million.
According to the report by the behind-the-scenes controversy over the proposed arms sale illustrates a broader debate among Washington policymakers over how to balance national security with human rights objectives.
The hold on the sale also showcases how powerful U.S. lawmakers want to push the Biden administration to rethink U.S. relations with Africa’s most populous country amid overarching concerns that Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari is drifting toward authoritarianism as his government is besieged by multiple security challenges, including a jihadist insurgency.
Read also: US-China trade surges, disregards ongoing economic contention and post-pandemic effects
Nigeria is on the front lines in the battle against Boko Haram, one of the world’s deadliest terrorist groups, and plays a role in U.S. and international efforts to roll back extremist groups in the Sahel region of West Africa. But Western governments and international human rights organizations have ramped up their criticisms of the Nigerian government, particularly in the wake of its ban on Twitter, systemic corruption issues, and the Nigerian military’s role in deadly crackdowns on protesters after widespread demonstrations against police brutality last year. New policing structure to prioritise human rights, transparency - Bamidele
493Their link is the someone-else-will reflex---it rests on nothing.
Cohen and Hoffman 23 — Jordan Cohen and Jon Hoffman. August 11. Policy analyst in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute; research fellow in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute. War on the Rocks, “Many Arms and Little Influence in the Middle East,” https://warontherocks.com/2023/08/many-arms-and-little-influence-in-the-middle-east/ Clopus
Despite the Biden administration’s relatively new Conventional Arms Transfer policy that seeks to include human rights in the arms sales process, the administration’s actual sales profile suggests that it seeks little real change from decades of prior U.S. arms transfers. Since 2009, the United States has delivered over $444 billion in arms sales to 169 countries. A major justification that U.S. administrations have used to overlook the inherent risks of arms sales is that, despite no empirical evidence, weapons sales allow Washington to leverage recipient dependence on American-made arms to force policy changes in line with U.S. interests.
Nowhere are the shortcomings of the “arms for leverage” argument more glaring than in the Middle East. The massive and constant flow of arms to the Middle East is predicated on the false notion that such sales help American partners to stabilize the region while simultaneously increasing U.S. influence and leverage. The logic that “if we do not sell arms, someone else will” is now one of the most cited reasons for continued arms sales to America’s Middle Eastern partners, lest they turn toward Russia or China.
BECOME A MEMBER
Instead, our research shows that weapons transfers to the Middle East do the opposite: Such massive weapon flows to the Middle East fuel the root causes of instability and provide nefarious actors with the tools for their repressive and aggressive domestic and foreign policies.
There is thus little evidence to suggest that leverage exists in ways that U.S. policymakers suggest. Instead, recipient states are using “reverse leverage” to guarantee a continuous flow of American weapons, undermining Washington’s foreign policy goals. Rather than doubling down on this flawed reasoning, which is rooted in decades of misunderstandings of the benefits from arms sales and the Middle East, the Biden administration should change course and begin reevaluating their rationale for sending weapons that empower dictators who actively undermine U.S. interests.
494The premise got debunked and the casualties were Muslim.
Adebayo 2-5 — Taiwo Adebayo. February 5. Lake Chad Basin researcher at the Institute for Security Studies. ISS Today, “US airstrikes were a constrained choice for Nigeria,” https://issafrica.org/iss-today/us-airstrikes-were-a-constrained-choice-for-nigeria Clopus
However, US President Donald Trump framed the strikes as an attempt to stop the ( debunked ) ‘Christian genocide’ taking place in the country – a claim that had earlier led him to threaten Nigeria with sanctions and military action.
The US emphasis on Islamic State and Christian persecution doesn’t match Nigeria’s security threats. There are also concerns about civilian casualties in Sokoto, the use of poor intelligence and America’s true intentions. And by contradicting its stance against foreign military intervention, Nigeria has increased the risk of political and sectarian strife.
Sokoto is an overwhelmingly Muslim-majority state, as are the casualties of attacks there, mainly by armed criminal gangs or bandits. None of the locations targeted by the strikes were affected by Islamic State-related activity.
Site of US airstrikes in Sokoto State, Nigeria
The strikes mainly hit Bauni Forest on the Niger border, a base for Lakurawa , a cross-border jihadi-criminal group that is not an Islamic State affiliate. It is operationally linked to Boko Haram’s JAS (Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad) faction, a rival to Islamic State West Africa Province.
Another impact site, Jabo, has no documented terrorist presence or history of violent activity. This raised concerns, particularly among Muslims, that innocent communities were affected. Nigerian political officials said Jabo was hit by debris rather than a deliberate strike. However security officials framed this explanation as damage control for a possible US targeting error linked to poor or misapplied intelligence.
It’s possible that the US deliberately labelled the targets as Islamic State to fit a political narrative at home. This ties into Trump’s earlier accusation of ‘Christian genocide’ – much like his ‘white genocide in South Africa’ claims in mid-2025. Allegations about both countries have been thoroughly debunked, but could resonate among evangelical and conservative US constituencies.
Such narratives could endanger fragile security situations in Africa and fuel sectarian tensions, especially in places like Nigeria, with a history of ethno-religious distrust and violence. They can also alienate local communities, who are vital for intelligence and counter-terrorism cooperation.
Growing US pressure and threats of unilateral strikes and sanctions left Abuja with few choices
Nigeria’s endorsement of the strikes was a departure from its posture against foreign combat operations on its soil. For years, Abuja received only training and equipment from foreign countries. The aim was to preserve its sovereignty and avoid a backlash, especially in the Muslim-majority north, which is often suspicious of Western intervention. But those concerns lessened as insecurity deepened, even among Muslims. Before the airstrikes, many Christians in Nigeria supported an American intervention.
Growing US pressure and threats of unilateral strikes and sanctions left Abuja with few choices. Rejecting the strikes could have reinforced the impression in Washington – and among some Christians at home – that Abuja was obstructing the protection of Christians, inviting diplomatic and economic repercussions. It might also have portrayed Nigeria’s government as impotent if the US operations proceeded regardless.
Nigeria's intelligence sharing ahead of the strikes appears to have been limited, but officials were pragmatic. They accepted America’s globally familiar ‘Islamic State’ messaging, saying the inclusion of local threats in this narrative was ‘handy strategic mistranslation’ as long as bad actors got hit and ties with America improved.
The Sokoto strikes were part of AFRICOM’s broader push for relevance under Trump’s second term. Under the previous administration, US influence declined after Niger’s junta asked it to withdraw from Niger Air Base 201 in 2024. The sprawling facility served as America’s hub for drones and surveillance operations in the Sahel, where Russia is expanding its influence.
After the Nigerian strikes, AFRICOM stated that America intends to get ‘a lot more aggressive’ kinetically in Africa
495Presidential leadership of Congress doesn't work---that's the finding.
Rottinghaus 13 — Brandon Rottinghaus. October 28. Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston. Brookings Institution, “Going Partisan: Presidential Leadership in a Polarized Political Environment,” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/going-partisan-presidential-leadership-in-a-polarized-political-environment Clopus
The polarization of politics has had a profound effect on political decision-making and presidential leadership. These changes alter the way that presidents attempt to persuade the public and, indirectly, members of the legislature. The “going partisan” theory is the next step in an evolving lineage of theorizing about how presidents adapt their political persuasion to their political environment. In particular, this theory has a number of advantages:
First, it helps to explain how presidents act in a system besieged by partisan polarization. The arc of the political process necessitates that presidents alter their tactics to lead and that scholars update their theoretical expectations about the success presidents may find.
Second, the “going partisan” theory helps to explain why presidential leadership doesn’t always work, perhaps more generally why presidential leadership of Congress does not always work.
Third, this theory is more cleanly resonant with evidence of the permanent campaign, which dominates the president’s strategic goals in the modern political era.
Ultimately, there is both good news and bad news for presidents. The good news is that big losses are avoided. Presidents, even those with a minority in both houses of Congress, can maintain a defensive position by keeping a minimum amount of opposition unified around the White House’s agenda. Although presidential leadership of the public is never easy, persuading copartisans is an easier task. Indeed, during the skirmishes over the budget and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in late 2013, President Obama kept the Democrats unified around primary policy goals. Even as the House Republicans crafted their final spending offer before the government shutdown in October, “the Democrats didn’t budge, killing the proposal without a single defection. Their unity was so assured that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t bother to convene a private caucus meeting to discuss the measure before the vote.” [1]
The bad news for presidents is that fewer substantial policy innovations or major agenda items are likely to be initiated or maintained. Going partisan is a sustainable strategy only as a defensive measure rather than as an offensive one. That is, presidents should focus on facilitating legislative action when they have majorities, even if opponents howl about an unfair process.
496The docket is empty by design---incumbents killed it, not us.
Bolton 8-12 — Alexander Bolton. August 12. Senior staff writer covering the Senate for The Hill. The Hill, “GOP worries time running out on Trump’s agenda with Congress,” https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6023566-senate-august-recess-trump-agenda/ Clopus
The president signed off on a deal to adjourn the Senate last week after reaching an understanding with Thune and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, that Republicans would work hard on laying the groundwork for a third budget reconciliation package during the August recess.
But GOP senators privately acknowledge there’s virtually no chance that Trump will get these wish list items before the election, warning that voting on them before November would amplify political targets on vulnerable Republican colleagues.
Several Republican senators at a meeting last week voiced concerns about holding a marathon series of votes on a budget resolution before the August recess, fearing that Democrats could force vulnerable GOP incumbents into a series of tough votes.
One GOP senator who attended the meeting said Thune clearly sided with vulnerable incumbents such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who warned her Republican colleagues that diving into a vote-a-rama weeks before the election would be big mistake.
Instead, Republican senators plan to tackle cryptocurrency regulation and college sports reform when they return to Washington in September.
Thune wants to put political pressure on Democrats by forcing them to vote on the Clarity Act, a bill that would establish a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies.
Republicans are betting Democrats will block the legislation over the lack of stronger conflict of interest provisions for Trump and his family, which could then unleash a torrent of political advertising from cryptocurrency-backers just in time to help GOP candidates.
Thune initially pledged the Senate would vote on cryptocurrency regulation before the August recess, but Democrats threatened to drag out votes on a continuing resolution (CR), Todd Blanche’s nomination to serve as attorney general and other matters to pressure the GOP leader to delay a politically damaging vote.
If Democrats block the cryptocurrency bill, the Senate would then move immediately to the Protect College Sports Act, a bipartisan bill to set national standards for recruiting and compensating college athletes — a top priority for Trump.
497The plan is what US law already requires---the fight is over not doing it.
HRW 8-19 — Human Rights Watch. August 19. International human rights monitoring organization. Human Rights Watch, “US-Nigeria Weapons Sale Requires Rights Safeguards,” https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/08/19/us-nigeria-weapons-sale-requires-rights-safeguards Clopus
The US State Department approved another potential multi-million-dollar weapons sale to Nigeria on August 14, citing support for the country’s efforts to fight terrorism and illicit trafficking. Yet the announcement is conspicuously silent on the Nigerian military’s record of serious human rights abuses and on what safeguards, if any, will be implemented to ensure accountability and prevent further violations.
The proposed sale includes munitions, precision bombs, and precision rockets and related equipment for an estimated cost of US$346 million. It follows another $997 million package approved in 2022, which included 12 AH-1Z attack helicopters. Although the 2022 deal was initially held up in the US Senate due to rights concerns, procurement of the helicopters is reportedly now underway. When considering the new arms deal, Congress should not treat it as a routine security transaction.
Security concerns across Nigeria are real and widespread. In the Northwest, violent raids, killings, and kidnappings for ransom by criminal gangs continue to destabilize communities. In the Northeast, the Islamist armed group Boko Haram and its splinter factions continue their brutal insurgency against the government while terrorizing civilians and committing abuses. In the Southeast, separatist armed groups routinely terrorize and attack communities and kill residents.
However, in responding to these threats, Nigerian security forces have been repeatedly implicated in serious rights violations, including unlawful killings, arbitrary detention, torture, and conflict-related abuses. The US State Department documented many of these abuses in its own 2024 Human Rights Report on Nigeria , released just last week. Military airstrikes have also repeatedly resulted in the deaths of people mistakenly identified as threats, without accountability. Despite ongoing calls for justice, meaningful reform remains absent.
Under US law , security assistance is prohibited to foreign forces implicated in gross human rights violations. Before this sale proceeds, US lawmakers should ensure US law is followed. They should require clear, enforceable accountability measures for all military operations, including during the use of airstrikes, alongside concrete safeguards to ensure compliance with international human rights law.
The United States should require such conditions before selling weapons to the Nigerian armed forces.
498Members are on record that this assistance hasn't worked.
Smith and Jacobs 23 — Chris Smith and Sara Jacobs. February 15. Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations; Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa. Office of Rep. Sara Jacobs, “Reps. Sara Jacobs, Chris Smith Push Biden Administration to Rescind $1 Billion Arms Deal with Nigeria,” https://sarajacobs.house.gov/news/press-releases/reps-sara-jacobs-chris-smith-push-biden-administration-to-rescind-1-billion-arms-deal-with-nigeria Clopus
We write to express our concern with current U.S. policy on and military support to Nigeria. Last month, Reuters completed a series of investigations into the Nigerian military’s conduct, which revealed an alleged secret mass forced abortion program since 2013 and apparent systemic targeted killings of children, in addition to a consistent record of human rights abuses and civilian casualties. Despite this, the United States recently approved a $997 million sale of 12 AH-1Z Attack Helicopters and related training and equipment to Nigeria.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has had a significant security partnership with Nigeria, with more than $232 million in security assistance, $1.6 billion in foreign military sales, and $305 million in direct commercial sales. While the United States has paired its security assistance with trainings focused on international law compliance, humanitarian workers on the ground report that Nigeria’s security forces “appear to have a limited understanding of humanitarian law and tools for effective engagement with local populations.” Moreover, the assistance we have provided has done little to stem the conflict – in fact, insecurity has worsened from the abuses committed by Nigerian forces. On top of all of this, there continue to be reports of weapons captured by insurgents – weapons that the State Department and Defense Department have proven unable to sufficiently track.
Therefore, we believe continuing to move forward with the nearly $1 billion arms sale would be highly inappropriate and we urge the Administration to rescind it. Given the recent reporting of Nigeria’s previously unknown mass forced abortion program – which allegedly ended at least 10,000 pregnancies – and the targeting of potentially thousands of children, we also urge a review of security assistance and cooperation programs in Nigeria to include a risk assessment of civilian casualties and abuses resulting from such assistance and whether such assistance has ever been diverted or had any significant positive effect on the conflict and violence in Nigeria.
We respectfully request a briefing on the progress of this review no later than 30 days after receipt of this letter. Thank you for your attention to this important matter and we look forward to your response.
499Capital doesn't move votes---polarization ate the mechanism.
Rottinghaus 13 — Brandon Rottinghaus. October 28. Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston. Brookings Institution, “Going Partisan: Presidential Leadership in a Polarized Political Environment,” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/going-partisan-presidential-leadership-in-a-polarized-political-environment Clopus
Debate persists about whether or not presidents lead public opinion, how they do it and the effect it has on Congressional voting behavior. In this paper, Brandon Rottinghaus articulates and finds support for an alternative strategy to the “going public” presidential leadership tactic. With the United States currently experiencing a hyper-polarized political environment, he argues that the president’s goal in “going partisan” is to directly mobilize local partisans and leaning partisans and indirectly engender greater party support of the president’s party within Congress. The end goal is not to persuade cross-pressured members of Congress or persuade opposition partisans, but rather to hold copartisan members of Congress in the fold. Thus, presidents target wavering copartisans in the public and in Congress with their rhetoric. This approach explains why presidents primarily travel to states that they won in previous elections, why presidents spend time courting partisan voters and provides the proper context for modern presidential leadership. Presidential visits have a significant impact on state-based partisan (and leaning partisan) presidential approval and partisan support in Congress.
The implications of this finding allows scholars to reassess the way presidents lead in a polarized political environment, as presidents are not focused on persuading a national persuadable audience but instead on political partisans. In particular, this provides additional evidence of the president’s effectiveness at motivating his partisans and how mobilized partisanship at the state level engenders more partisan support of the president. The effect is modest (about half a percentage point per year) but effective considering the president’s limited options. The creation of mutual executive-legislative partisan goals through greater partisan support softens the bargaining environment for presidents. Importantly, that these effects are specific to a more polarized period in the country and within Congress, there is additional evidence that presidential leadership has evolved into a partisan effect as political polarization has cemented in Congress. The rumors of the death of the president’s ability to leverage his popularity into support in Congress is greatly exaggerated. This effect wanes, however, in the polarized period, suggesting new partisan tactics are necessary.
Conclusion and Implications for Presidential Leadership
The polarization of politics has had a profound effect on political decision-making and presidential leadership. These changes alter the way that presidents attempt to persuade the public and, indirectly, members of the legislature. The “going partisan” theory is the next step in an evolving lineage of theorizing about how presidents adapt their political persuasion to their political environment. In particular, this theory has a number of advantages:
First, it helps to explain how presidents act in a system besieged by partisan polarization. The arc of the political process necessitates that presidents alter their tactics to lead and that scholars update their theoretical expectations about the success presidents may find.
Second, the “going partisan” theory helps to explain why presidential leadership doesn’t always work, perhaps more generally why presidential leadership of Congress does not always work.
Third, this theory is more cleanly resonant with evidence of the permanent campaign, which dominates the president’s strategic goals in the modern political era.
Ultimately, there is both good news and bad news for presidents. The good news is that big losses are avoided. Presidents, even those with a minority in both houses of Congress, can maintain a defensive position by keeping a minimum amount of opposition unified around the White House’s agenda. Although presidential leadership of the public is never easy, persuading copartisans is an easier task. Indeed, during the skirmishes over the budget and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in late 2013, President Obama kept the Democrats unified around primary policy goals. Even as the House Republicans crafted their final spending offer before the government shutdown in October, “the Democrats didn’t budge, killing the proposal without a single defection. Their unity was so assured that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) didn’t bother to convene a private caucus meeting to discuss the measure before the vote.” [1]
The bad news for presidents is that fewer substantial policy innovations or major agenda items are likely to be initiated or maintained. Going partisan is a sustainable strategy only as a defensive measure rather than as an offensive one. That is, presidents should focus on facilitating legislative action when they have majorities, even if opponents howl about an unfair process.
500There's no agenda left to spend it on.
Bolton 8-12 — Alexander Bolton. August 12. Senior staff writer covering the Senate for The Hill. The Hill, “GOP worries time running out on Trump’s agenda with Congress,” https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6023566-senate-august-recess-trump-agenda/ Clopus
The Senate’s departure for a five-week August recess leaves big political fights for September and the postelection lame-duck session, setting up a scramble to accomplish as much of President Trump’s agenda before Republicans possibly lose complete control of Congress.
Trump has ramped up pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to move a budget reconciliation package to help cover the costs of the war with Iran and to raise the debt limit through the end of his second term so he doesn’t have to negotiate with Democrats on those two huge issues.
“That’s going to be the last helicopter off the embassy, a reconciliation package, and they’re going to put every effort they can into getting that through because that would be the last piece of Republican policy for a while” if Democrats win control of part of Congress, said Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist and former Senate leadership aide.
Trump has acknowledged that the nature of his presidency may change next year, given the possibility Democrats will regain one or both chambers of Congress.
501Policy runs through the executive now---Congress barely legislates.
Taylor 26 — JT Taylor. January 8. Head of Government Relations research for Hartford Funds’ global macro team. Hartford Funds, “Washington’s 2026 Playbook,” https://www.hartfordfunds.com/insights/market-perspectives/global-macro-analysis/washingtons-2026-playbook.html Clopus
After a year in which the executive branch significantly broadened its role, lawmakers entered 2026 looking to reassert congressional authority. Throughout 2025, the Trump administration advanced its agenda through executive actions—canceling appropriated spending, restructuring federal agencies via DOGE, imposing tariffs, and authorizing military strikes in the Middle East and Caribbean—often without waiting for legislative approval.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed in July, stands as the primary legislative achievement for Republican leadership. It delivered on tax cuts, defense spending, immigration enforcement, and energy production, but also underscored how limited opportunities for major legislation have become. With fewer than 40 bills enacted last year, the 119th Congress is on pace to be among the least active in a president’s opening years.
As midterms approach, the key question for 2026 is whether Congress can reclaim a stronger role, or whether executive action becomes the prevailing mode of governance. Republicans are considering a second reconciliation bill focused on affordability, though expectations remain modest. The year begins with debates over Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and the risk of another government shutdown—issues likely to consume political capital early. Without a clear strategy to strengthen its influence, Congress may continue to see policymaking driven by executive orders and regulatory action.
Inside Capitol Hill: What’s Next for Lawmakers
Reconciliation in Focus
Republicans remain split on whether to pursue another reconciliation bill to bypass the Senate filibuster. Some senators favor starting the year with a budget resolution that includes military funding, healthcare provisions, and immigration enforcement grants. While President Donald Trump and party leaders have shown hesitation, Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and others view reconciliation as a fallback if bipartisan healthcare talks stall. And although Trump favors abolishing the filibuster altogether, that’s not on the table. In the near term, an affordability-focused reconciliation package is the most viable route to significant legislation before the midterms.
502The September calendar is crypto and college sports.
Bolton 8-12 — Alexander Bolton. August 12. Senior staff writer covering the Senate for The Hill. The Hill, “GOP worries time running out on Trump’s agenda with Congress,” https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6023566-senate-august-recess-trump-agenda/ Clopus
Instead, Republican senators plan to tackle cryptocurrency regulation and college sports reform when they return to Washington in September.
Thune wants to put political pressure on Democrats by forcing them to vote on the Clarity Act, a bill that would establish a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies.
Republicans are betting Democrats will block the legislation over the lack of stronger conflict of interest provisions for Trump and his family, which could then unleash a torrent of political advertising from cryptocurrency-backers just in time to help GOP candidates.
Thune initially pledged the Senate would vote on cryptocurrency regulation before the August recess, but Democrats threatened to drag out votes on a continuing resolution (CR), Todd Blanche’s nomination to serve as attorney general and other matters to pressure the GOP leader to delay a politically damaging vote.
If Democrats block the cryptocurrency bill, the Senate would then move immediately to the Protect College Sports Act, a bipartisan bill to set national standards for recruiting and compensating college athletes — a top priority for Trump.
503The data won't split by religion---churches and mosques both.
Ajala 11-5 — Olayinka Ajala. November 5. Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at Leeds Beckett University; has researched Nigerian insurgency for over a decade. The Conversation, “Is there a Christian genocide in Nigeria? Evidence shows all faiths are under attack by terrorists,” https://theconversation.com/is-there-a-christian-genocide-in-nigeria-evidence-shows-all-faiths-are-under-attack-by-terrorists-268929 Clopus
The data shows that non-state actors have attacked both churches and mosques in Nigeria. While there have been more attacks on churches in the last six years, the data reveals that there were more attacks on mosques in 2015 and 2017.
Generally, Nigeria’s population is considered to be roughly evenly split between the two religions, with only around 0.6% adhering to traditional African religions or other beliefs.
Although it is difficult to extract the number of fatalities in these cases, the number of attacks on places of worship is an indication that both Christians and Muslims are under attack by terrorist and insurgent groups in Nigeria.
Trump’s history with Nigeria
This is the second time Trump has designated Nigeria as a country of particular concern. The first time was in December 2020, when he stated that the government of Nigeria was not doing enough to protect the safety of Nigerians, especially Christians. This was under the regime of former president Muhammadu Buhari.
Events leading to the designation of Nigeria as a country of particular concern this time started in March 2025, two months after Trump was sworn in for a second term. The US House foreign affairs sub-committee on Africa approved measures urging the president to impose sanctions on Nigeria due to the widespread persecution of Christians.
In addition, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom report on Nigeria (2025) argued that religious freedom in Nigeria remains poor. It said the federal and state governments in Nigeria continue to “ tolerate attacks or failed to respond to violent actions ” by non-state actors on Christians in the country.
The commission recommended that the US government designate Nigeria as a country of particular concern for “engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act”.
What the designation means for Nigeria
The “country of particular concern” status is an official classification under the US International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The act requires the president of the US to declare this status where the government of a country has “ engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom ”.
Such violations include arbitrary execution based on faith, torture or inhuman treatment based on religion as well as other denials of the rights to life, liberty, or security because of a person’s religion.
In the case of Nigeria, there is no evidence that any of these acts have been carried out by the government.
504The UN's own coordinator: the majority of the dead are Muslim.
Robinet 1-29 — Fabrice Robinet. January 29. UN News, reporting an interview with Mohamed Malik Fall, the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Nigeria. UN News, “Violence roiling Nigeria extends beyond religious lines, amid a deepening humanitarian crisis,” https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/01/1166857 Clopus
Citing the need to protect Christians from Islamist militants, the US administration ordered airstrikes on Christmas Day against jihadist positions in northern Nigeria. In Washington, some officials have since argued that a “Christian genocide” is underway.
The UN is refraining from that characterisation.
“Attributing this violence to the targeted persecution of a religious group – I would not take that step,” Mr. Fall said. “The vast majority of the more than 40,000 people killed in the insurgency are Muslims. They were attacked and killed in mosques.”
He pointed to an attack in Maiduguri, the historic centre of the insurgency, carried out on Christmas Eve in an area “between a mosque and a market,” which killed Muslim worshippers as they left prayers.