Is the US deepening its military involvement in Nigeria?

• Joint US-Nigeria airstrikes killed at least 175 Islamic State fighters, including the group’s global second-in-command.
• Increased US military involvement in Nigeria has raised questions about transparency regarding the exact role of American troops.
• Analysts argue that while airstrikes are effective in the short term, long-term solutions must address recruitment and the underlying causes of extremism.

Joint airstrikes by the US and Nigeria have killed at least 175 fighters of the so-called Islamic State (IS) terror group in Nigeria’s northeast.

The jihadist group’s global second-in-command was among those killed, according to the US Africa Command (AFRICOM).

Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu was quick to thank US President Donald Trump for his leadership and unwavering support, saying he looked forward to more such “decisive strikes against terrorist enclaves”.

AFRICOM commander General Dagvin Anderson told a Congressional hearing in Washington that Nigeria had been “instrumental throughout the last several months, developing the target, helping us with the intelligence, and providing support” as per the remit of the cooperation between the two countries, which dates back almost 20 years.

However, in recent months, under the initiative of Tinubu, the US involvement in Nigeria, especially its ongoing security affairs, has increased, raising questions about the depth, scale and nature of the current arrangement.

Breaking down the US-Nigeria military partnership 

Malik Samuel, a senior researcher at Good Governance Africa in Nigeria, regards the present US engagement critically, stressing that the presence of US troops in Nigeria was supposed to be “limited to intelligence-gathering support, [and] training, ruling out combat operations for the troops”.

“But with reports, especially in the US media, saying that US troops were actually deployed for this purpose, this clearly shows that the Nigerian government has not been transparent with regard to the exact roles that the US troops will be playing.”

DW reporter Jamiu Abiodun Sulaiman says that “seeing the United States with its military might, spotlighting the Islamic State in the north, is a welcome development.

“But when you look deeper, [the mood] is kind of divided because there are still concerns because of the issue that the Nigerian government has not been transparent about its partnership with the US,” Sulaiman said, conceding that “[t]he broader US-Nigeria partnership leaves more questions than answers, but a lot of people still believe that this is going to – to some extent – decimate IS in the northeast.”

AFRICOM: An extension of the US’s war on terror

According to the United Nations (UN), more than 40 000 people have been killed and over two million others displaced since the Boko Haram Islamist extremist insurgency began in 2009.

This insurgency has since evolved and now includes Boko Haram’s offshoot and rival, the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).

The US has been offering help to the Nigerian military, mainly within the framework of AFRICOM, established in 2008, with the intention of fighting terrorism throughout much of Africa.

This image shows the destruction after attacks carried out by armed groups in the Woro and Nuku areas of Kwara State, Nigeria.

Emmanuel Osodi/Anadolu via Getty Images

AFRICOM says its mission focuses on supporting African partner forces through military training, intelligence cooperation, logistics and regional security operations aimed at counterterrorism and stability.

However, despite AFRICOM’s involvement, there has been little improvement on the ground in Nigeria.

Nigeria’s military ‘stretched thin’ between multiple fronts

In early 2026, the United States expanded its military presence in Nigeria following joint counterterrorism operations and airstrikes carried out in late 2025.

While Washington described the deployment as focused on training, intelligence-sharing and advisory support, recent joint operations suggest US involvement in Nigeria’s security operations has become more active and operationally significant.

“The US, as a partner, goes a long way in nipping these issues in the bud. Nigeria alone cannot actually do it,” DW’s Sulaiman highlights.

“The Nigerian military is quite stretched thin – in the sense that we have terrorism, or Boko Haram, in the northeast, we have criminal gangs, bandits in the northwest.”

The upsurge in violence prompted the Nigerian President Bola Tinubu to declare a nationwide state of emergency in 2025 and to seek the help of US President Donald Trump.

Security analyst Samuel argues that these US-led airstrikes serve their purpose, stressing, however, that they cannot go on indefinitely.

“Sustained military operations [are] needed against these violent, extremist groups, but in the long-term, it is not sustainable because the more you rely on operations like this, the more likely [it is] that civilians will get caught [in crossfire],” he told DW.

Risk of civilian casualties

“With the US troops participating in any strike or any attack, you cannot rule out civilian casualties simply because of the presence of US troops.”

This is a general view of destroyed structures in Offa caused by debris from expended munitions that fell from US strikes on unspecified militants linked to the Islamic State group in Nigeria.

It is also unclear whether US forces’ targeting the proverbial head of the snake will actually lead to long-term change.

This week’s attacks killed Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, a major IS group leader described by the Nigerian military as the “most active terrorist” in the world, in addition to several other senior terrorist figures; US President Trump even went as far as referring to the IS figure as the jihadist organisation’s “second in command”.

READ | Nigeria airstrike kills 100 at market, Amnesty says

“The joint strikes have resulted in the destruction of ISIS checkpoints, weapons caches, logistical hubs, military equipment and financial networks used to sustain terrorist operations,” the military added in an official statement.

But Samuel believes that this alone is not enough: “There’s a need to look at how we found ourselves in this situation; [at] issues like [IS] recruitment. Because while airstrikes or military operations have been killing terrorists, including high-profile terrorists, but groups like Boko Haram have very elaborate recruitment processes,” Samuel stressed, adding that the group has a recruitment pool of fighters, including child soldiers.

He made the statement against the backdrop of attempts to reintegrate former terror group fighters back into society.

“So the long-term strategy should be how to prevent this recruitment.”

This article was originally published on dw.com.