MxM News

President Trump said Christmas night that he ordered U.S. forces to carry out airstrikes in northwest Nigeria, targeting ISIS-linked militants he blamed for a campaign of mass killings against Christians.

In announcing the operation, Trump said the United States delivered “powerful and deadly” blows against terrorists who have been “viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians,” adding that he had warned them repeatedly that the slaughter would bring consequences. He credited precise U.S. strikes, said his administration would not allow radical Islamic terrorism to take root, and closed with a Christmas message blessing the military while signaling more action if the attacks continue.

.@POTUS “Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and… pic.twitter.com/ct7rUW128t

— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) December 26, 2025

The strike followed weeks of intensifying reports documenting targeted violence against Christian communities across northern and central Nigeria, violence that multiple journalists and religious freedom advocates have described as genocidal in nature.

Islamist factions including Boko Haram and allied jihadist militias have, for more than a decade, carried out coordinated assaults aimed at erasing Christian villages from the Middle Belt and the north. Those attacks have repeatedly spiked around Christian holidays, particularly Christmas and Easter.

During a December 16 briefing attended by reporters and advocates, speakers described the violence as a deliberate campaign of obliteration. Steven Kefas of the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa pointed to the timing of the attacks as evidence they are religiously motivated, noting that assaults frequently occur on Sundays and Christmas Eve. If the killings were random criminality, he asked, why are Muslim communities not attacked on Fridays or on the eve of their own celebrations?

Critics say the crisis has been compounded by denials from Abuja. President Bola Tinubu has consistently downplayed the religious nature of the violence, framing it instead as banditry or climate-related conflict, and pushed back on international scrutiny even after Trump designated Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern for religious freedom earlier this fall.

While the Nigerian government later declared a state of emergency and dismissed senior defense officials, watchdog groups report that Christians who survive the attacks — and journalists who document them — continue to face threats and intimidation.

According to Open Doors, Nigerian Christians now endure an average of eight violent attacks every day, a level of brutality critics say the government has long minimized or ignored.

The issue has also drawn attention beyond Washington. In a Christmas Eve message, Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel remains the only Middle Eastern nation where the Christian community is thriving and added that militant displacement and attacks against Christians in Nigeria “must end.”

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Last Friday, less than a week before Christmas, the Smith government quietly released the final report from its Alberta Next Panel, which assessed Alberta’s role in Canada. Among other things, the panel recommends that the federal government transfer some of its tax revenue to provincial governments so they can assume more control over the delivery of provincial services. Based on Canada’s experience in the 1990s, this plan could deliver real benefits for Albertans and all Canadians.

Federations such as Canada typically work best when governments stick to their constitutional lanes. Indeed, one of the benefits of being a federalist country is that different levels of government assume responsibility for programs they’re best suited to deliver. For example, it’s logical that the federal government handle national defence, while provincial governments are typically best positioned to understand and address the unique health-care and education needs of their citizens.

But there’s currently a mismatch between the share of taxes the provinces collect and the cost of delivering provincial responsibilities (e.g. health care, education, childcare, and social services). As such, Ottawa uses transfers—including the Canada Health Transfer (CHT)—to financially support the provinces in their areas of responsibility. But these funds come with conditions.

Consider health care. To receive CHT payments from Ottawa, provinces must abide by the Canada Health Act, which effectively prevents the provinces from experimenting with new ways of delivering and financing health care—including policies that are successful in other universal health-care countries. Given Canada’s health-care system is one of the developed world’s most expensive universal systems, yet Canadians face some of the longest wait times for physicians and worst access to medical technology (e.g. MRIs) and hospital beds, these restrictions limit badly needed innovation and hurt patients.

To give the provinces more flexibility, the Alberta Next Panel suggests the federal government shift tax points (and transfer GST) to the provinces to better align provincial revenues with provincial responsibilities while eliminating “strings” attached to such federal transfers. In other words, Ottawa would transfer a portion of its tax revenues from the federal income tax and federal sales tax to the provincial government so they have funds to experiment with what works best for their citizens, without conditions on how that money can be used.

According to the Alberta Next Panel poll, at least in Alberta, a majority of citizens support this type of provincial autonomy in delivering provincial programs—and again, it’s paid off before.

In the 1990s, amid a fiscal crisis (greater in scale, but not dissimilar to the one Ottawa faces today), the federal government reduced welfare and social assistance transfers to the provinces while simultaneously removing most of the “strings” attached to these dollars. These reforms allowed the provinces to introduce work incentives, for example, which would have previously triggered a reduction in federal transfers. The change to federal transfers sparked a wave of reforms as the provinces experimented with new ways to improve their welfare programs, and ultimately led to significant innovation that reduced welfare dependency from a high of 3.1 million in 1994 to a low of 1.6 million in 2008, while also reducing government spending on social assistance.

The Smith government’s Alberta Next Panel wants the federal government to transfer some of its tax revenues to the provinces and reduce restrictions on provincial program delivery. As Canada’s experience in the 1990s shows, this could spur real innovation that ultimately improves services for Albertans and all Canadians.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute