By Erewunmi Peace

In a dramatic escalation of diplomatic strain, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, convened a high-level emergency meeting on Monday, November 3, 2025 with service chiefs and heads of key security and intelligence agencies at the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) in Abuja.

The meeting follows a startling statement from former U.S. President Donald Trump, in which he indicated that the U.S. military is preparing for possible operations in Nigeria over alleged “large-scale killings of Christians.”

The statement by Trump reportedly included instructions to the U.S. Department of Defense (or “Department of War”, in the posted text) to prepare for “possible action” in Nigeria if the security situation does not improve.

The Ribadu-chaired meeting was convened to “coordinate a unified national security response and review intelligence assessments of the potential consequences” of the U.S. pronouncement.

While no full official communiqué from the meeting has yet been released, sources say the agenda included contingency planning and protecting Nigeria’s sovereignty in the face of increased international scrutiny.

Sovereignty at stake: Nigeria’s readiness to respond to an external military threat highlights how domestic security issues are now entangled with international diplomacy and military contingency.

Religious & security framing: The trigger for the U.S. concerns centres on allegations of Christian persecution in Nigeria — which the Nigerian government strongly rejects.

Regional implications: Should the U.S. take any steps, even just planning or signalling, the ripple effects across West Africa’s security and diplomatic landscapes would be profound.

Domestic pressure: For Nigeria’s government and security apparatus, the meeting sends a message of heightened alert and an acknowledgement of the stakes involved — both internally and externally.

Will the Office of the NSA release the outcome of the meeting and outline Nigeria’s policy response?

How will the Nigerian government formally engage with the U.S. on this matter — will there be diplomatic negotiations, clarifications or escalation?

How will the Nigerian public and media react — will this provoke fresh debates about religious violence, national integrity or international interference?

From the U.S. side: Will there be follow-through on the threat? More publicly detailed plans or legislative moves might appear.

Nigeria has been grappling with multiple armed conflicts, including Islamist insurgency in the northeast, farmer-herder violence in various regions, and banditry. These are not limited to a single religious group.

The U.S. threat reportedly rests on allegations of Christian killings and the designation of Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” with respect to religious freedom — a label that Nigeria disputes.