This resolution condemns the persecution of Christians in Nigeria and supports decisive U.S. action to end the existential threat they face.
Riley Moore
Representative
WV-2
This resolution condemns the severe, ongoing persecution and mass killing of Christians in Nigeria by terrorist groups and militants. It criticizes the Nigerian government for failing to protect its Christian citizens and for enforcing blasphemy laws. Finally, Congress stands ready to support decisive action, including sanctions, to end this existential threat and calls for direct humanitarian aid to victims.
This Congressional resolution is a heavy hitter, focusing entirely on the severe violence and religious persecution targeting Christians in Nigeria. It doesn’t create a new law, but it sends a very strong message: Congress is condemning the mass killings, church burnings, and kidnappings carried out by groups like Boko Haram and Fulani militants, and it’s calling out the Nigerian government for allegedly failing to protect its Christian citizens.
For those of us juggling work and life, the numbers in this resolution are staggering. It cites estimates that between 50,000 and 100,000 Christians have been killed for their faith since 2009. More recently, in 2025 alone, over 7,000 Christians were reportedly killed, averaging 35 murders a day. This isn't just random crime; the resolution asserts these are deliberate religious cleansing campaigns, often coordinated during Christian holidays. When you see numbers like that, it stops being about foreign policy and becomes a clear humanitarian crisis.
The resolution doesn't stop at the militants; it squarely criticizes the Nigerian Federal and state governments. The core issue is the alleged failure to respond to warnings and the official denial that religious persecution even exists. Imagine a local police chief dismissing a warning about a mass attack as “fake news”—that’s the kind of failure the resolution documents. Even worse, Nigeria retains blasphemy laws in 12 northern states that carry the death penalty. This isn't just theoretical; the resolution cites cases where these laws have been used to imprison or threaten Christians and minority Muslims, while mobs who commit violence often walk free. For anyone who values freedom of speech and religion, this is a major red flag.
This is where the resolution shifts from condemnation to action. It calls upon the U.S. Government to use all available diplomatic, economic, and security tools to pressure Nigeria. If you run a business that deals with international trade, or if you care about how your tax dollars are spent abroad, this is the part to watch. The goal is clear: force Nigeria to end impunity for religiously motivated violence, protect Christian communities, and repeal those blasphemy laws.
Using “economic and security tools” generally means sanctions, aid restrictions, or targeted visa bans. While the intent is to protect persecuted communities, these tools can be blunt instruments. If broad sanctions are applied, they could inadvertently hurt the very people the U.S. aims to help—Nigerian citizens already struggling with high costs and instability. The resolution tries to mitigate this by encouraging humanitarian aid coordination directly through trusted non-governmental organizations, aiming to bypass potentially corrupt government channels.
One unique element in this resolution is the explicit statement that the House stands ready to support President Donald J. Trump in taking decisive action to end the threat. Resolutions like this are usually addressed to the current administration. This specific wording, focusing on a former president, introduces a layer of political complexity. While the humanitarian goal is clear—to stop the killing—this language suggests a preference for a specific, potentially unilateral, executive approach to foreign policy rather than a slow, bipartisan diplomatic process. For busy citizens, this means we need to pay attention not just to what action the U.S. takes, but how it's authorized and implemented, especially if it involves significant economic or security measures abroad.