The New York Times article titled “The Screwdriver Salesman Behind Trump’s Airstrikes in Nigeria,” authored by a certain Ruth Maclean, makes a mockery of logic and human intelligence. Some have been on an ‘I-said-it’ overdrive because it attempted to reframe the “Christian genocide” problem that Nigeria has by pointing fingers at Emeka Umeagbalasi as the amateur originator of the report that the governor of the United State of America and the Government of Nigeria relied upon to collaborate on the December 25, 2025 military action on a terrorist base in Sokoto state. It is easy to dismiss the NYT report as trash. But that would overlook the innuendo it created and the agenda it intended to set. However, whichever way one views it, the article is absolute trash. Bunkum!
The illogical article commits a grave journalistic sin: it insults the intelligence-gathering capabilities of both U.S. and Nigerian security services by implying that high-stakes decisions like airstrikes were driven primarily by an activist’s unverified reports rather than robust, professional intelligence. It deliberately ignores the substantial contributions of organisations like the Save Nigeria Group USA (SNG USA), Bishop Wilfred Anagbe, Evangelist Ezekiel Dachomo and key U.S. government officials who have long advocated for action against religious violence in Nigeria, including the blacklisting of the country as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for religious freedom violations. The NYT also insults the sensibilities of Nigerians by its purposeful diminishing of legitimate concerns about Islamist extremism in Nigeria, which gave birth to Boko Haram, ISWAP and other such groups, long after Maitatsine was defeated, by portraying advocacy against these as fringe sensationalism.
The core of the NYT’s infantile narrative is that Umeagbalasi’s research, which it described as biased, unverified, and methodologically deficient, was the basis for the U.S. policy on Nigeria. That NYT portrayal is a profound insult to the U.S. intelligence community’s sophistication. Decisions on airstrikes, especially against high-value targets like ISWAP and Lakurawa in Sokoto State, are not made in a vacuum of advocacy reports.
The U.S. military and agencies like the CIA, NSA, and Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) maintain extensive networks in Africa, including drone surveillance, human intelligence, signals intelligence, and partnerships with regional allies. For instance, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has been monitoring Boko Haram and ISWAP since the early 2010s and providing real-time data on terrorist movements, safe houses, and attack patterns. Therefore, the Christmas Day strikes were explicitly framed by the US government as a response to “radical, terrorist scum” massacring Christians. Such a claim can only be supported by classified briefings.
The NYT overlooked historical precedents, like the 2019 U.S. drone strike on ISWAP leader Abu Musab al-Barnawi or ongoing counterterrorism operations in the Sahel, which clearly show that U.S. military actions stem from vetted intelligence that is corroborated by satellite imagery and intercepted communications. So, by spotlighting Umeagbalasi as the “behind” figure, the article logically accuses him of gross incompetence at the highest levels. It suggests that the National Security Council of the United States government bypassed protocols for a trader’s Google-fueled dossier. This not only underestimates the rigour of U.S. intel but also risks eroding public trust in institutions that rely on secrecy for effectiveness. In an era of hybrid warfare, such journalism plays into adversaries’ hands, suggesting that America’s power is reactionary, not strategic.
Equally offensive is the article’s implied disdain for Nigeria’s security services. By attributing the airstrikes to a trader’s reports rather than bilateral intelligence sharing, the NYT frames Nigeria’s military and agencies as ignorant, daft or complicit in the violence. The article made a deliberate, yet irrational effort to pretend not to know that Nigeria’s security apparatus, including the Nigerian Armed Forces, Department of State Services (DSS), and National Intelligence Agency (NIA), has been at the forefront of combating Boko Haram since 2009. Military engagements, such as “Operation Lafiya Dole,” and multinational collaborations under the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) with Chad, Niger, and Cameroon have reported progress in degrading ISWAP’s capabilities and rescuing thousands, as well as reclaiming territories.
U.S.-Nigeria intelligence sharing, formalised through agreements such as the 2017 Bilateral Military Cooperation Framework, involves joint fusion centres where data on terrorist financing, arms trafficking, and attack precursors is exchanged. The Christmas strikes likely benefited from Nigerian-provided ground truth, including geolocation data from captured militants or surveillance flights. The NYT’s focus on Umeagbalasi erases this collaboration and further implies that external amateurs filled a void left by Nigeria’s supposed ineptitude. This echoes colonial-era narratives on African states as failed entities, and also ignores progress under President Bola Tinubu’s administration, including increased drone acquisitions and community policing initiatives.
Moreover, by questioning the religious dimension of violence, the article ignores or downplays evidence of targeted attacks on Christians, such as the bomb attack on St. Theresa’s Madalla in 2011, St. Francis Xavier at Owo, Ondo state, in 2022, Owo, among numerous others in Plateau, Benue, Kaduna, Borno state, etc. Dismissing Nigerian intel as inferior, as the NYT article implied, not only insults the sacrifices of Nigerian soldiers and security personnel lost since 2009. It also hinders international partnerships essential for stability in West Africa. This makes the actual intention of the author of the article deeply suspect.
Another glaring, but disturbing, omission in the NYT article is the role of the Save Nigeria Group USA (SNG USA). The group is a diaspora-led organisation dedicated to halting what it describes as the “genocide of Christians in Nigeria.” Founded to amplify the voices of persecuted communities, SNG USA has organised rallies in Washington, D.C., and issued press releases thanking Donald Trump for redesignating Nigeria as a CPC on November 3, 2025.
Their advocacy has put before their US audience staggering figures of attacks on churches and casualty figures. They put these at over 185,000 deaths since 2009, with 19,000 churches destroyed. They also allege average daily killings of 35 Christians in 2025. Drawing on testimonies from affected dioceses and reports from groups like Genocide Watch, SNG USA has influenced policy by lobbying Congress and the State Department. In all these, they emphasised that the problem was not just violence but also forced conversions and displacements. The NYT ignored this. It also failed to interview SNG officials resident in the US, but preferred to fly to Onitsha to frame Umeagbalasi. However, by the fixation on Umeagbalasi, the NYT erases SNG USA’s contributions and portrays the push for action as isolated rather than a concerted movement.
This selective ignoring extends to U.S. government officials instrumental in blacklisting Nigeria. Key figures include former Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback, who in 2025 testified before Congress on jihadist threats, and USCIRF commissioners like Gary Bauer, who documented attacks via field reports. Representatives Moore and Smith introduced resolutions condemning the “massacre,” while Ted Cruz’s bills targeted sanctions against complicit Nigerian officials.
Overlooking these serves a narrative that delegitimises conservative advocacy on religious freedom, framing it as alarmist. In reality, the blacklisting process involves rigorous USCIRF assessments, incorporating data from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and on-ground verifications, which are far beyond a “screwdriver salesman’s” work. Ignoring these sources and efforts clearly suggests that the NYT’s mission to Umeagbalasi’s shop was orchestrated, especially coming on the heels of the $9m bill for lobbying against the “Christian-genocide” tag on Nigeria and the CPC redesignation. Natural wisdom will link the death of a baby in the morning to the witch who cried at night.
The New York Times’ article’s effort at denialism pales to insignificance when weighed against the unrestrained attacks by bandits on Christian and Muslim communities in Nigeria, including schools and places of worship. It is common sense to argue that Nigerians are more interested in ending these killings, including mass abduction of school children, than they are in knowing who generated the intelligence. Besides, there is no point in living in denial, for if the killing did not happen, no one, not even the SNG USA, or Cruz, or Rep Moore, or Amnesty International or Umeagbalasi’s Intersociety would have a report to make. Reports about killings in Nigeria, either of Christians or Muslims, exist because such killings occur. That’s the logic to face. Living in denial will only fragment Nigeria more. Perhaps that is the intention of the NYT report.
