China Will Not Dictate Our Foreign Policy — US Lawmaker Insists on Military Action Against Terrorists in Nigeria
In a fiery rebuke that has deepened tensions between Washington and Beijing, United States Congressman Riley Moore has declared that China “will not dictate America’s foreign policy,” amid escalating international controversy over President Donald Trump’s reported intention to authorize limited military intervention in Nigeria.
The statement, released via Moore’s verified X (formerly Twitter) account, came hours after Beijing publicly warned the United States against what it described as “unwarranted interference in Nigeria’s internal affairs.” The Chinese government’s position, announced through Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, condemned any U.S. attempt to use religion or human rights as a pretext for military involvement in Africa’s largest democracy.
But Moore, a Republican congressman from West Virginia known for his staunch nationalist stance, hit back forcefully, accusing China of hypocrisy and authoritarian arrogance.
“China will not dictate our foreign policy to us,” Moore wrote. “We will not be lectured by a Communist autocracy that jails pastors, burns churches, and throws ethnic minorities in concentration camps. President Trump is absolutely right to defend our brothers and sisters in Christ who are suffering horrific persecution, and even martyrdom, for their faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
The post immediately drew global attention, reigniting a long-running debate about the moral and geopolitical limits of American interventionism — particularly in Africa, where both Washington and Beijing have sought to expand influence through diplomacy, trade, and security cooperation.
The controversy stems from President Donald Trump’s recent statement, reportedly made during a closed-door conservative summit in Texas, where he vowed to “take action” to protect Christian communities in Nigeria if “the genocide continues.” Although the White House has yet to release an official policy paper, several U.S. lawmakers have echoed the sentiment, describing it as a “moral necessity.”
The alleged “genocide” refers to years of sustained violence in Nigeria’s Middle Belt and northern regions, where thousands have been killed in clashes between armed herdsmen, Islamist militants, and local farming communities. Western advocacy groups, particularly U.S.-based Christian NGOs, have accused the Nigerian government of turning a blind eye to attacks targeting Christian populations — a claim Abuja has consistently denied.
Trump’s comments triggered immediate condemnation from Abuja, with Nigerian authorities insisting that the situation was being exaggerated by “foreign actors with ulterior motives.”
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, responding within hours of the U.S. reports, declared that it “firmly opposes any country using religion and human rights as an excuse to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs.” Speaking at a press briefing in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning reiterated China’s “unwavering support” for the Nigerian government, calling the country “a comprehensive strategic partner.”
“As Nigeria’s comprehensive strategic partner, China firmly opposes any country using religion and human rights as an excuse to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, and threatening other countries with sanctions and force,” Mao said.
She went on to reaffirm Beijing’s belief that every nation has the right to “pursue its own path of development suited to its national conditions.”
Chinese media outlets such as Global Times and People’s Daily subsequently ran editorials warning the U.S. against “neo-colonial interventions” in Africa, framing Trump’s position as a “return to Cold War moral imperialism.”
Riley Moore’s response was characteristically blunt. The congressman, who sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, accused Beijing of “projecting its sins on others” while silencing religious minorities within its own borders.
“The Chinese Communist Party lectures America about ‘non-interference’ while it interferes in every free market, censors free speech, and runs concentration camps in Xinjiang,” Moore wrote in a follow-up thread. “Their regime arrests Christian pastors, bulldozes churches, and monitors sermons. They have no moral authority to tell us what to do.”
He further accused Beijing of trying to protect “its African client states” from scrutiny while pursuing exploitative economic relationships across the continent.
“China’s goal in Nigeria is simple: economic domination through debt and corruption,” Moore claimed. “They invest billions in infrastructure, but they do so to own critical assets — ports, railways, power grids. And now they want to stop us from protecting innocent Christians? Not on my watch.”
Moore’s comments have divided opinion across the U.S. political spectrum. Conservative lawmakers and evangelical leaders hailed his remarks as a bold stand for religious freedom. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Mike Johnson (R-LA) both retweeted Moore’s post, calling it “a necessary moral stance against tyranny.”
Meanwhile, progressive Democrats and international relations scholars warned that Trump’s and Moore’s rhetoric risked inflaming tensions with two major global powers simultaneously — China and Nigeria — while undermining existing diplomatic channels.
“This is reckless moral posturing masquerading as foreign policy,” said Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “You cannot just threaten military action against a sovereign state because of unverifiable reports from partisan NGOs.”
However, within conservative circles, particularly among evangelical advocacy groups like Open Doors USA and Christian Solidarity International, Moore’s comments were hailed as “a long-overdue call to conscience.”
In Abuja, the Tinubu administration reiterated its rejection of all foreign intervention in Nigerian security matters. Presidential aide Daniel Bwala described Trump’s statements as “deeply misinformed and politically motivated,” arguing that “no credible evidence supports the claim of a state-sponsored genocide against Christians.”
“We try our best to downplay the rhetoric because we know for sure that that can be the reflection of the realities on ground,” Bwala said in an interview on Russia National TV. “The decision of President Trump is anchored on the various tweets and pushes by congressmen. And the congressmen rely on data and reports submitted by a separatist group in Nigeria called IPOB. These claims are false.”
Bwala went further to accuse certain Western media outlets of “echoing propaganda from groups seeking to destabilize Nigeria.”
“All intelligence and independent organisations that carry out research on killings in Nigeria — none but two groups with IPOB affiliations — have ever indicated that there is a Christian genocide. Even their data contradicts that narrative,” he said.
Analysts say Beijing’s swift defense of Nigeria is consistent with its broader strategic interests in Africa. Over the past decade, China has become Nigeria’s largest bilateral lender and a leading investor in infrastructure, from railways to power generation.
Dr. Li Jian, a Beijing-based scholar of African studies, told Xinhua News Agency that “the United States is reawakening an old colonial mentality under the guise of moral protection.”
“Nigeria is China’s partner, not its pawn,” Li said. “When Washington threatens force, it does so to sustain influence it lost long ago. China stands with nations that resist Western intimidation.”
In contrast, U.S. strategists view Beijing’s rhetoric as part of a global campaign to undercut American moral legitimacy. According to retired U.S. diplomat Matthew Harper, “China’s intervention in the Nigeria debate is less about religion and more about signaling: Beijing wants to be seen as Africa’s protector against Western interference.”
At the heart of the dispute lies a deeper ideological struggle over who defines global morality — Washington or Beijing.
Since the 2020s, China’s “non-interference” doctrine has appealed to many African governments wary of Western pressure on democracy and human rights. Meanwhile, U.S. conservatives have increasingly tied foreign policy to religious liberty, framing global Christianity as a moral frontier in the fight against tyranny.
Political scientist Dr. James Falcone of Georgetown University explains:
“What’s happening now is an intersection of faith, politics, and great power rivalry. Trump and Moore represent a populist moral foreign policy driven by evangelical support at home. China, on the other hand, is exploiting that rhetoric to rally developing nations under the banner of sovereignty. Nigeria is caught in the crossfire.”
Across Africa, reactions to the U.S.-China war of words have been mixed. In Kenya and Ghana, Christian advocacy groups have praised Trump’s statements as a “wake-up call” to governments that “tolerate religious violence.” In contrast, Nigeria’s Muslim leaders, as well as the African Union Commission, have condemned the talk of military intervention as “neo-colonial and destabilizing.”
A joint communiqué by ECOWAS foreign ministers warned that “any unilateral U.S. intervention in a member state would constitute a breach of African sovereignty and international law.”
The statement emphasized that while “religious violence in Nigeria is deeply concerning,” regional mechanisms exist for mediation and humanitarian support — not unilateral military action.
Within the U.S., the issue has also exposed divisions between Christian conservatives and secular policymakers. While the former view the Nigeria crisis as a test of America’s global moral leadership, the latter caution against military overreach.
Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson argued that “protecting persecuted Christians should be America’s moral duty,” while MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow criticized the idea as “another Trump-era fantasy that risks dragging America into another endless foreign entanglement.”
Public opinion polling from Morning Consult shows that 47% of Republican voters support “limited intervention” to stop religious persecution in Africa, compared to just 18% of Democrats.
Professor Funmi Adebajo, an expert in international diplomacy at the University of Ibadan, said Nigeria must navigate the crisis carefully.
“Nigeria cannot afford to be drawn into a Cold War between China and the United States,” she said. “The government must assert sovereignty without appearing to align ideologically with any bloc. Diplomacy, not defiance, will preserve Nigeria’s long-term interests.”
As Congressman Riley Moore’s remarks continue to reverberate globally, the episode underscores a new phase in global geopolitics — one where faith, ideology, and power politics converge in unpredictable ways.
For the U.S., the question remains whether moral conviction justifies military involvement in complex internal conflicts abroad. For China, it is an opportunity to present itself as the guardian of sovereignty and stability. And for Nigeria, it is a test of resilience in an increasingly polarized world order.
“The United States will never surrender its moral compass to Communist China,” Moore wrote in his final post on Tuesday night. “If we have to choose between silence and standing for the persecuted, we will stand — even if the world stands against us.”
Whether that declaration signals a serious policy shift or merely political theatre remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the ideological battle between Washington and Beijing now stretches far beyond trade and technology — it extends into the moral fabric of global politics, with Nigeria caught squarely in the middle.