Breaking: US Congressman Differ Over Trump's Unilateral Authority to Launch Airstrike in Nigeria
- After President Trump claimed unilateral authority for air strikes against ISIS in Nigeria, a constitutional debate among lawmakers has been sparked
- Some lawmakers argue that military action requires congressional approval, challenging Trump's interpretation of war powers
- US Africa Command confirms strikes targeted ISWAP at Nigeria's request, raising questions about foreign military engagement
Sharp divisions have emerged within the United States Congress over President Donald Trump’s claim that he has the unilateral authority to order air strikes against terrorist targets in Nigeria, following recent US military action in the country’s north-west.
The debate erupted after Trump announced that American forces had carried out what he described as “powerful and deadly” strikes against Islamic State-linked militants operating in Sokoto state, insisting the operation was executed under his powers as commander-in-chief.
Source: UGC
Trump asserts commander-in-chief powers
In a post on his Truth Social platform in the early hours of Friday, December 26, the US president said the strikes targeted ISIS fighters whom he accused of attacking civilians, particularly Christians.
“Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scum in Northwest Nigeria,” Mr Trump wrote, warning that further military action would follow if the violence continued.
He added that the operation demonstrated America’s resolve against what he called “radical Islamic terrorism”.
Lawmakers question legality of strikes
However, Trump’s assertion of unilateral authority has drawn criticism from some US lawmakers, who argue that the Constitution does not permit the president to launch offensive military actions abroad without congressional approval.
Source: Getty Images
Former Republican congressman Justin Amash challenged the legal basis for the strikes, insisting that existing authorisations do not extend to Nigeria.
“There’s no authority for strikes on terrorists in Nigeria or anywhere on earth,” Mr Amash said in a statement posted on social media. The 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force is only for the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Offensive military actions need congressional approval.”
War powers debate resurfaces in Washington
Amash also rejected suggestions that the War Powers Resolution could justify the strikes, arguing that it does not grant powers beyond those outlined in the US Constitution.
“The framers of the Constitution divided war powers to protect the American people from war-eager executives,” he said.
He added that decisions on overseas military engagements should rest with Congress, not the president alone.
Other lawmakers, however, have defended the president’s actions, citing the need for swift responses to global terrorist threats and longstanding executive authority to protect US interests and allies.
AFRICOM confirms Nigeria’s involvement
Meanwhile, the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) confirmed that the operation was conducted at the request of Nigerian authorities and was aimed at degrading the operational capacity of the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).
The command said the strikes formed part of ongoing cooperation with Nigeria to counter terrorism and improve regional security, particularly in areas affected by violent extremist groups.
Debate likely to intensify
The disagreement among US lawmakers is expected to intensify scrutiny of America’s counter-terrorism operations abroad, especially as questions grow over the limits of presidential war powers and the role of Congress in authorising military force.
For now, the strikes have not only reignited debate in Washington but have also drawn international attention to the legal and political implications of US military actions on foreign soil.
Nigerians react to US airstrike in Nigeria
Source: Legit.ng
