On December 25, 2025, a series of United States airstrikes targeting alleged terrorist elements in Sokoto State, Nigeria, ignited a widespread and fervent debate concerning national sovereignty, security efficacy, and the implications of international cooperation. While US President Donald Trump announced the "powerful and deadly" strikes against what he described as ISIS-linked militants responsible for "viciously killing, primarily innocent Christians," the Nigerian government asserted that the operation was a collaborative effort, sanctioned by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and executed with Nigerian intelligence.

Nigeria's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Tuggar, confirmed that the Nigerian government provided the intelligence that prompted the US action. He detailed direct consultations with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, including a 19-minute discussion and a subsequent 5-minute call just before the strikes were launched. Tuggar emphasized that President Tinubu personally approved the operation, ensuring it was framed as a joint effort against terrorism rather than being religiously motivated. He reiterated Nigeria's commitment to working with partners to combat terrorism and protect lives, rejecting the religious framing of the violence, which Nigerian authorities consistently maintain affects people of all faiths. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) also confirmed the coordination and expressed gratitude for the Nigerian government's support.

On the ground, residents of Tangaza and Tambuwal Local Government Areas in Sokoto State confirmed experiencing drone attacks. In the Jabo District of Tambuwal, a community reportedly not previously heavily affected by insecurity, eyewitnesses recounted widespread panic following a loud explosion and a massive fireball. They discovered a large crater on farmland and recovered metal fragments, though no injuries or casualties were reported in this specific incident. In Tangaza, strikes were confirmed in Warriya and Alkasim villages, targeting suspected hideouts of the 'Lakurawa group,' with officials still assessing the full impact, including potential civilian casualties.

However, the government's narrative of collaboration faced staunch opposition from various Nigerian political parties and civil society organizations. The African Democratic Congress (ADC) accused President Tinubu's administration of "baffling incompetence" and "historic incompetence" in managing national security, arguing that allowing a foreign military operation undermined Nigeria's sovereignty and reduced it to "mere informants" in an operation it should have led. The ADC demanded clarification on operational control, casualty figures, and details of neutralised terrorists, also criticising the government's communication strategy, where news of the strikes broke first from the US President's social media.

Similarly, the African Action Congress (AAC) warned against celebrating the strikes, viewing them as a dangerous precedent that could erode Nigeria's sovereignty and turn the nation into a "battleground for global power interests." The AAC cited past US interventions in other countries as examples of destabilizing outcomes driven by imperialist and selfish motives rather than genuine solutions. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) echoed concerns about the communication breakdown, noting that Nigerians learned of the strikes from US officials before their own government. Both the AAC and PDP called for clearer terms of engagement and joint operations focused on knowledge transfer rather than externally-led attacks.

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) through its Executive Director, Auwal Rafsanjani, asserted that the US acted independently without formal Nigerian approval, describing the government's response as a "face-saving" measure. Rafsanjani highlighted Nigeria's "weak foreign policy" and constitutional failures to protect citizens, which created conditions for external intervention. He, along with the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) from South Africa, strongly criticised President Trump's religiously charged narrative, arguing it distorted the complex crisis of violence (driven by poverty, banditry, and state failure affecting all faiths) into a simplistic story of "Christian killings" to justify military intervention and advance imperialistic agendas, including oil interests.

Further concerns were raised by the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC), which called for urgent clarification on the legal, institutional, and accountability frameworks governing foreign military operations. RULAAC stressed that such operations must be anchored in the rule of law, with clear safeguards against civilian harm, and should not be a substitute for addressing Nigeria's fundamental governance failures, which are seen as the root cause of persistent insecurity.

Conversely, some Nigerian groups expressed support for the intervention. The pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere, described the strikes as "timely and necessary," commending the US involvement after years of relentless insecurity. Afenifere argued that true sovereignty is measured by a government's capacity to protect its citizens, rather than by rhetoric, and urged solidarity to eradicate terrorism. Senator Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, representing Sokoto South, also appealed for calm, assuring residents that counter-terrorism operations target criminal elements, not innocent civilians, and are part of ongoing efforts to restore peace and stability.

In conclusion, the US airstrikes on Christmas Day 2025 have unveiled a complex web of reactions, ranging from condemnation of perceived sovereignty infringements and governmental incompetence to support for necessary security interventions. The incident has intensified national dialogue on the nature of international counter-terrorism partnerships, the critical importance of national sovereignty, and the imperative for the Nigerian government to address the underlying socio-economic and governance failures that fuel insecurity, rather than relying on external military solutions.