On Wednesday, Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, announced a sweeping visa-restriction policy targeting Nigerians alleged to be involved in anti-Christian violence, including supporters and family members of alleged perpetrators.
The new policy is being implemented pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 212(a)(3)(C), which authorises the U.S. government to deny visas to individuals who “have directed, authorised, significantly supported, participated in, or carried out violations of religious freedom.” Where appropriate, the ban may extend to immediate family members.
In his statement, Rubio said the measure is part of “decisive action in response to the mass killings and violence against Christians by radical Islamic terrorists, Fulani ethnic militias, and other violent actors in Nigeria and beyond.”
He added the policy could apply not only to Nigeria but to “any other governments or individuals engaged in violations of religious freedom.”
The decision follows a renewed focus on violence against religious minorities in Nigeria. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in its 2025 report recommended that the U.S. Department of State designate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for “systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations” of religious freedom. The report cites persistent deadly attacks by non-state actors including insurgents, bandits and ethnic militias, coupled with slow or ineffective state response.
On October 31, 2025, the U.S. government officially reinstated Nigeria on the CPC list. The move signalled heightened scrutiny and opened the way for further measures, including visa restrictions and other sanctions.
The visa ban is one of several recent U.S. measures: earlier this year, American lawmakers introduced a bill that would impose visa bans and asset freezes on individuals linked to alleged religious violence, including leaders of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) and related Fulani herder-militia groups.
Reactions and Controversy
Proponents argue the visa ban is a necessary step to hold perpetrators accountable and signal global condemnation of religious persecution. Supporters include U.S. lawmakers who have described the situation in Nigeria as a “ground zero” for anti-Christian violence.
Meanwhile, the Federal Government and religious organisations have rejected Washington’s characterisation. The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) recently argued that Nigeria’s security challenges are rooted in broader issues — climate stress, banditry, poor governance — rather than religious persecution, calling the U.S. actions “political cynicism.”
Critics caution that the visa ban may strain diplomatic relations and weaken cooperation on security challenges like terrorism and banditry — issues the government says affect citizens across faiths.
Individuals suspected of involvement in religious-based violence — including alleged members of militias, extremist groups, or those who fund or support such actors — may be denied U.S. visas, or have existing visas revoked or blocked.
The ban may also affect immediate family members of those targeted.
The policy reflects a broader and more aggressive U.S. stance on global religious-freedom violations and could be a precursor to further measures such as asset freezes or expanded sanctions under existing legislative proposals.
As the visa-restriction policy takes effect, attention will turn to its implementation. Key questions remain: How will the U.S. determine culpability? Will visa denials be transparent or based on classified assessments? And how will this affect broader U.S.–Nigeria relations, especially security cooperation?
For many Nigerians, especially those with ties to the U.S. — students, professionals, diaspora — the new policy represents increased uncertainty. Meanwhile, both human-rights advocates and the government are bracing for diplomatic tensions as the U.S. escalates pressure in response to religious-freedom concerns.
