Trump Orders Nigeria Action Plans
Hello and welcome to the blog! Every so often, a document surfaces that peels back a layer of government secrecy, giving us a fascinating glimpse into the decision making that happens behind closed doors. That’s exactly what has happened recently with the declassification of a 2018 memo from then-President Donald Trump, revealing a direct order to his administration to tackle the escalating violence in Nigeria.
This isn’t just a dusty piece of paper; it’s a window into the Trump administration’s foreign policy approach to one of Africa’s most pivotal nations. The memo, signed in February 2018, directed the US Secretary of State to create a “comprehensive plan of action” to address Nigeria’s complex security crises. But what did this order really mean? Why was it issued then, and what, if anything, came of it? Let’s break down this intriguing piece of diplomatic history.
### The Memo Unveiled: A Directive for a Comprehensive Plan
At the heart of this story is the document itself: a “Presidential Memorandum on Nigeria.” Signed by President Trump, it landed on the desk of the Secretary of State with a clear and urgent mandate. The language of the memo leaves little room for ambiguity. It expressed deep concern over the “extraordinary violence” plaguing the country, specifically naming the terrorist organizations Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa.
Crucially, the memo didn’t stop at just extremist groups. It also acknowledged the brutal and widespread violence stemming from conflicts between herders and farming communities, a crisis that has claimed thousands of lives and displaced many more. This showed a surprisingly nuanced understanding of Nigeria’s multi-faceted security challenges, which are often oversimplified in international headlines.
The directive was specific. The Secretary of State was given 90 days to develop and present a complete action plan. The stated goal of this plan was twofold: first, to provide “material assistance” to the Nigerian security services to help them combat these threats more effectively. Second, and just as importantly, it was to ensure the protection of “vulnerable populations” and “civilians” caught in the crossfire. This memo wasn’t just a suggestion; it was a formal, top-down order to mobilize the resources of the US government to intervene in a meaningful way.
### Context is King: Politics, Diplomacy, and Timing
To understand why this memo was written, we have to look at the political climate of early 2018. The directive was signed just a few weeks after President Trump reportedly made his controversial and widely condemned “shithole countries” remark, in which Nigeria was allegedly included. The timing suggests the memo could have been part of a diplomatic effort to smooth over the fallout from those comments and demonstrate a serious commitment to the US-Nigeria relationship.
Furthermore, the memo was issued ahead of a high-profile meeting between President Trump and Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari at the White House. In the world of international diplomacy, such directives are often used to set the agenda and show proactive engagement before leaders meet. It allowed the Trump administration to present a tangible policy initiative, moving the conversation beyond awkward apologies and toward concrete partnership on security matters.
The memo’s existence today is thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Emmanuel Ogebe, a prominent Nigerian human rights lawyer based in the US. The fact that it took a formal legal request to bring this document to light speaks volumes about how many government directives operate in the background, unknown to the public. It’s a powerful reminder of the importance of transparency in holding governments accountable for their stated intentions.
### The Billion-Dollar Question: What Came of the Plan?
A presidential memo ordering a plan is one thing. The execution and impact of that plan are another matter entirely. This is where the story becomes more complex and the results much harder to measure. The memo clearly shows intent at the highest level, but what was the practical outcome of the “comprehensive plan of action” it demanded?
It is difficult to draw a straight line from this specific memo to every subsequent US action in Nigeria. The US has provided security and humanitarian assistance to Nigeria for years. However, following this period, some key developments did occur. Most notably, the sale of 12 A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft to the Nigerian Air Force, a deal initially stalled under the Obama administration, was finalized. These aircraft have since become a critical tool for Nigerian forces in their fight against insurgents in the country’s northeast. Intelligence sharing and military training programs also continued.
However, critics and observers, including the lawyer who unearthed the memo, rightfully question whether a truly “comprehensive” and effective strategy was ever fully implemented. Since 2018, Nigeria’s security landscape has, in many ways, deteriorated. Banditry and kidnapping for ransom have exploded into a criminal enterprise across the northwest, the farmer-herder conflict continues to simmer, and the jihadist insurgency remains a deadly threat. If the goal was to decisively turn the tide, the evidence on the ground suggests the plan fell short. This raises a crucial question about the gap between policy formation in Washington D.C. and the complex, often intractable realities of conflict zones abroad.
### Conclusion
The declassification of this 2018 memo is a significant development. It provides a rare, unfiltered look into the Trump administration’s formal policy process regarding Nigeria’s security. It reveals a moment when the US president, for a mix of diplomatic, political, and security reasons, directed his government to take direct action. The document is proof that at the highest levels, the severity of Nigeria’s internal conflicts was recognized and deemed worthy of a dedicated American strategy.
At the same time, it serves as a sobering lesson in the limits of foreign policy. An order to create a plan does not guarantee its success. The persistent violence in Nigeria years later underscores the immense difficulty of resolving deep-rooted conflicts from the outside. This memo is more than just a historical artifact; it’s a case study in the immense challenge of turning presidential intent into lasting peace and stability on the ground.