Trump Strikes ISIS in Nigeria and Even The Washington Post Admits He Got It Right

The facts are straightforward here. President Trump ordered military strikes against Islamic State terrorists in Nigeria on Christmas night, and even The Washington Post editorial board had to acknowledge that this was the correct decision. Let that sink in for a moment.

The strikes targeted ISIS’s Sahel Province branch in northwest Nigeria, a region where Christians and Christian institutions have faced relentless attacks in recent months. Trump announced the operation on Truth Social Thursday, making clear that the United States military had conducted decisive airstrikes against militants responsible for killing Christians. The message was unambiguous: attacks on innocent people, particularly religious minorities facing genocide, will be met with overwhelming force.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. The Post’s editorial board, not exactly known for their enthusiasm regarding Trump administration policies, called these “righteous strikes” and described them as a “welcome change.” They went further, urging the president to “remain engaged” in the region. When your ideological opponents are forced to admit you made the right call, you probably made the right call.

The editorial acknowledged a critical tension within foreign policy debates. There exists a faction within Trump’s advisory circle advocating for a significant reduction in American commitments abroad, essentially arguing for a retreat to regional power status focused primarily on the Western Hemisphere. This represents legitimate isolationist sentiment that has grown across the political spectrum in recent years, particularly after two decades of nation-building exercises that produced questionable results.

However, the Nigeria strikes demonstrate that strategic engagement and endless foreign entanglements are not synonymous concepts. There is a vast difference between deploying hundreds of thousands of troops for prolonged occupations and conducting targeted military operations against terrorist organizations actively committing atrocities.

The Islamic State’s presence in the Sahel region represents a genuine threat, not merely to regional stability but to persecuted religious minorities facing systematic violence. Nigerian Christians have endured horrific attacks, with entire communities targeted for their faith. This is not abstract geopolitical maneuvering. This is about confronting evil actors who murder innocent people.

The strategic calculus here is clear. America possesses unmatched military capabilities that allow for precise strikes against terrorist targets without massive ground deployments. Utilizing these capabilities to eliminate threats and protect vulnerable populations aligns with both American interests and values. We can debate the scope of American engagement globally, but allowing ISIS affiliates to operate with impunity while they slaughter Christians should not be a difficult moral question.

Trump’s decision demonstrates that principled foreign policy need not choose between reckless interventionism and complete isolationism. There exists a middle path: strategic engagement focused on genuine threats, executed with overwhelming force, and concluded without indefinite commitments. The Nigeria strikes exemplify this approach.

Former religious freedom ambassador Sam Brownback has discussed the significance of these strikes, recognizing that religious persecution demands American attention and, when appropriate, American action. The administration’s willingness to act decisively in defense of persecuted Christians sends an important message globally about American priorities and capabilities.

The bottom line remains simple. ISIS terrorists were killing Christians. Trump ordered strikes. The terrorists were eliminated. Even The Washington Post agrees this was justified. Sometimes, foreign policy really is that straightforward.

Related: National Guard Deployment Aims to Combat Violent Crime in New Orleans