US passes bill to halt Nigeria aid over violence against Christians.
An effort to withhold 100 per cent of United States aid to Nigeria until the Nigerian government takes effective steps "to prevent and respond to violence in the country" has passed the U.S. House of Representatives.
The provision is part of the Fiscal Year 2027 National Security, Department of State and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which the House passed on Wednesday. The legislation still requires approval by the Senate and President Donald Trump's signature before it can become law.
The bill originally proposed withholding 50% of U.S. assistance to Nigeria. However, lawmakers approved an amendment by Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., to increase that to 100% until the U.S. secretary of state certifies that Nigeria is taking effective action to protect Christians and hold perpetrators of religious violence accountable.
"My amendment to withhold 100% of U.S. aid to Nigeria until its government stops the slaughter of Christians has passed," Steube wrote on X after the vote. "American taxpayers should never bankroll governments that turn a blind eye while Christians are abducted, tortured, and murdered."
Supporters of the legislation say the measure is intended to pressure President Bola Tinubu's government to improve security in regions where Christian communities have repeatedly come under attack from armed groups.
Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.V., who sponsored the broader legislation, said Christians in Nigeria have endured years of violence while receiving insufficient protection from the government.
“Christians in Nigeria continue to endure horrific violence, murder, and persecution while a majority of the world turns a blind eye to their suffering. President Trump has taken bold actions to strike the terrorists in Nigeria, and this bill sends a clear message that the United States will continue to stand with persecuted Christians across the globe, especially in Nigeria,” Moore said after the passage. “This important bill also holds foreign governments accountable and ensures American taxpayer dollars advance our national interests.”
If enacted, the legislation could affect millions of dollars in American assistance that supports health care, humanitarian relief, security cooperation, governance programs and development initiatives across Nigeria. The United States provided about $929 million in foreign assistance to Nigeria in 2024, making it one of Washington’s largest aid recipients in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2025, that figure reduced to $616 million. according to U.S. foreign aid data.
While the exact programs affected would depend on how the law is implemented, a suspension of aid would likely complicate cooperation between Washington and Abuja at a time when both countries continue to work together against extremist groups operating in northern Nigeria.
Nigeria’s complex security situation
Nigeria has long battled multiple security crises. Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province continue to wage insurgencies in the country's northeast, while heavily armed criminal gangs operate across the northwest. In the country's Middle Belt, violence involving farming communities, nomadic herders and armed militias has claimed thousands of lives over the past decade.
Many Christian organizations argue that Christians have been disproportionately targeted, particularly in Plateau and Benue states, where churches and predominantly Christian villages have suffered repeated attacks.
Human rights organizations and conflict researchers, however, say the situation is more complex. Groups such as the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project have found that both Muslims and Christians have suffered heavily from insurgent violence, banditry and communal conflict, although Christians have also experienced attacks specifically because of their faith.
Right groups say insecurity is fueled by a combination of religious extremism, competition over land and water, ethnic tensions, organized crime and weak governance. That complexity has been central to the Nigerian government's response.
Tinubu's administration has consistently rejected allegations that the country is witnessing a government-backed campaign against Christians. Nigerian officials maintain that terrorism and criminal violence affect citizens regardless of religion.
Responding to criticism from Washington last year, Tinubu said Nigeria's security challenges affect people “across faiths and regions” and insisted the country remains committed to religious tolerance. Presidential adviser Daniel Bwala also said jihadist groups “had killed people from all faiths, or none,” while emphasizing that Nigeria remained committed to fighting violent extremism.
The debate has intensified under Trump, who has repeatedly accused Nigeria of failing to protect Christians.
The current legislation reflects a broader shift in Washington’s approach under the Trump administration, which has increasingly tied foreign assistance to religious freedom concerns.
Earlier this year, Moore said the proposed legislation followed a congressional investigation into violence against Christians in Nigeria that he conducted at Trump's request.
“The Tinubu Administration is spending millions lobbying Congress while failing to adequately address the genocide Nigerian Christians face daily,” Moore wrote when the House Appropriations Committee first advanced the proposal in April.
Supporters argue that conditioning aid would force Nigerian authorities to prioritize security reforms, prosecute attackers more aggressively and better protect vulnerable communities.
Critics, however, warn that reducing U.S. assistance could have unintended consequences by weakening programs that directly benefit ordinary Nigerians, including health services, humanitarian assistance and security cooperation aimed at combating extremist organizations.
The legislation has also renewed international debate over how the violence in Nigeria should be characterized.
While many church leaders and religious freedom advocates describe the attacks on Christian communities as systematic persecution, several researchers caution against reducing Nigeria’s security crisis to a single religious narrative.
Conflict analysts note that Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province have killed Muslims as well as Christians, while farmer-herder violence often stems from disputes over land, grazing routes and local political tensions that overlap with religious identities.
For now, the measure remains only a proposal.
The Senate must approve its own version of the appropriations bill before lawmakers reconcile differences between the two chambers. The final legislation would then require Trump's signature before any restrictions on aid could take effect.
Even so, the House vote sends one of the clearest signals yet that concerns over religious freedom in Nigeria have become a significant issue in Washington. Whether the measure ultimately becomes law or is modified during negotiations, it is likely to increase diplomatic pressure on Tinubu’s government to demonstrate measurable progress in protecting vulnerable communities and addressing one of Africa's most persistent security crises.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Net zero scepticism is too often confused with climate change scepticism. But they are not the same thing. It is an elementary distinction, but an important one. Climate change is a scientific phenomenon. Net zero by 2050 is a political programme.
One can accept the science while questioning whether a particular collection of laws, subsidies, targets and prohibitions will actually solve the problem. The current net zero 2050 plans do not.
That is my position and has been my position for years.
Yet writing in The Telegraph on Wednesday, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard accused me of flirting with “climate nihilism”. He warns that the Conservatives are becoming Trumpian and trying to stop the clock on technological progress.
This was long before Nigel Farage discovered the issue. In fact, Nigel’s de facto deputy, Richard Tice, was praising many of the net zero ideas back then.
The plan finally did arrive 840 days later and was still inadequate. Environmental organisations subsequently took the government to court and won because the policy lacked sufficient detail.
We are already years into this supposedly settled national project, yet the people defending it still cannot explain credibly how it will be delivered.
The best way to deliver cleaner energy and a better environment is not through state diktat, arbitrary deadlines and an ever-expanding bureaucracy paid to inspect the consequences of its own policies; it is through markets, innovation and competition.
Britain now has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world: four times higher than those in the United States and 50 per cent higher than in France and Germany. Britain’s domestic electricity prices are some of the highest in Europe.
In the UK, net zero taxes, subsidies and system costs are estimated to account for 40 per cent of electricity-generation costs, around £22bn every year. The Carbon Tax alone adds roughly a third to wholesale electricity prices.
Since 2002, families and businesses have paid more than £67bn through the Renewables Obligation subsidy scheme – a Miliband-era boondoggle that no one’s ever heard of.
These are not minor inconveniences to be brushed aside before moving on to predictions about the unstoppable march of electrotech. Energy costs determine whether factories open or close, whether restaurants survive, and whether families can afford to heat their homes.
Nor can Britain ignore where these technologies come from. China is building a new coal-fired power station roughly every other week while British workers are told that their own industries must close to save the planet.
The world’s leading solar-panel manufacturers are overwhelmingly Chinese. Electric vehicles depend on batteries whose supply chains are dominated by China. There are already serious questions about whether foreign-made energy technology can be controlled or disabled remotely.
There is a further absurdity. We are closing lower-carbon North Sea production while continuing to import dirty oil and gas with a higher carbon footprint.
If our model creates the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, shuts factories and transfers production to countries burning more coal, nobody will follow us. Instead, other countries will take our jobs and grow their economies.
Meanwhile, in Britain more and more people are employed to inspect emissions, write climate compliance documents and distribute subsidies. Their salaries are ultimately funded by the workers and businesses being regulated out of existence.
We have to do things differently.
Previous Conservative governments made mistakes on this issue. But this Conservative Party gets it. No other party does.
Labour remains trapped in the belief that declaring a target is the same as delivering it. Reform complains about net zero, but when you get into the detail of the legislation and the technicalities, they head off to the pub.
If you think Reform has done any of the work needed to dismantle decades of net zero laws and regulation, restructure the energy market, and deliver cheaper power, I have a bridge to sell you.
I know people may be sceptical because of what’s happened in the past. Let me reassure you that this Conservative Party is different to Labour, different to Reform, and different to the Conservative Party to which people said “no thanks” in 2024.
Led by me, an engineer, with my shadow energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, a mathematician, we have a team with the intent and brains to sort this intractable policy problem for good. We are approaching this task with energy, confidence and optimism because Britain is capable of doing far better.
We can have cleaner energy without sacrificing prosperity. We can protect the environment without destroying our industrial base. We can reduce emissions while strengthening our security and restoring public consent.
Kemi Badenoch is leader of the Conservative Party.