The claim that former United States Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden used United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to fund Boko Haram in Nigeria comes from U.S. Congressman Scott Perry and has been reported by some news outlets. However, there’s no solid evidence to support this allegation. In fact, both administrations actively opposed Boko Haram. For example, in 2014, the Obama administration provided significant support to Nigeria — including intelligence sharing and deploying advisory teams — to help fight Boko Haram and secure the return of kidnapped individuals.
It’s important to note that Perry is a controversial figure whose statements have often sparked debate and drawn skepticism. His claims, including those regarding USAID and Boko Haram, have not always been substantiated by credible evidence, underscoring the need to evaluate his assertions with caution and to verify them through multiple reliable sources.
It’s also worth noting that throughout history, the U.S. has used intelligence operations to influence the political landscape of other nations. Common examples include covert actions in Iran (Operation Ajax in 1953), Guatemala (1954), and Chile (1973), which were carried out during the Cold War to counter perceived threats and promote U.S. strategic interests.
In addition, Africa has its own notable examples. During the early 1960s, U.S. involvement in the Congo crisis is a prime illustration. After Congo gained independence, covert actions and intelligence operations played a role in the political instability that eventually led to the gruesome murder of the first prime minister, Patrice Lumumba and the eventual rise of Mobutu Sese Seko, whose long dictatorship significantly negatively impacted the region. This example, along with others, underscores how U.S. interventions have often been driven by strategic interests rather than a desire to destabilize partner nations.
Given that Nigeria today is a key partner in counterterrorism and regional stability, one must ask what strategic benefit the West would gain from destabilizing it. Destabilisation would likely undermine long-term U.S. interests, making the claim that USAID was used to sponsor Boko Haram even less credible.
With the lack of credible evidence and the documented U.S. stance against Boko Haram, this claim should be treated with skepticism. It’s crucial to verify such serious accusations by consulting multiple reliable sources and official statements.
Adefemiwa writes from New York and can be reached at femi.adefemiwa@gmail.com
