Good morning,

I hope you had a nice weekend. Let’s jump right into the Monday morning brief.

Reporting Period: October 30-November 2, 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

Trump Suggests Military Action In Nigeria If Killing Of Christians Is Not Addressed

Summary
On October 31, 2025, President Trump confirmed that the United States may intervene in Nigeria due to continued persecution of Christians. Trump asked U.S. Congressmen and the House Appropriations Committee to investigate the crisis. In a separate statement, Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed intervention may include military action.

Findings

• Background: Recent reporting has detailed attacks on Christian-majority farming villages in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region by armed terror organizations such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), as well as local herdsman militias (Atlantic Post). Recent estimates suggest that approximately 53,000 Christian’s have been killed since 2009 (Atlantic Post).

• Trump’s Statement: On October 31, President Trump formally acknowledged the violence against Christians in Nigeria (The White House, BBC). Trump has formally requested the Nigerian government enact measures to stop the violence and protect its Christian population (The White House, BBC). Trump also requested U.S. Congressmen to investigate the crisis, and for the Department of War to make preparations for military intervention(The White House, BBC).

• Hegseth’s Statement: On November 1, 2025, Secretary Hegseth confirmed that the Department of War is “preparing for action” against Islamic terrorist organizations in Nigeria (Reuters, X).

Why This Matters
Potential U.S. military involvement in Nigeria would expand U.S. counterterrorism commitments at a time when resources are already stretched across multiple theaters, including the Middle East and the Western Pacific. Nigeria is a critical security partner in West Africa and the most populous country on the continent. A shift toward military intervention risks straining bilateral ties, especially if Abuja views U.S. action as infringing on sovereignty.

Intervening against Boko Haram and ISWAP could support regional stability, but these groups operate across borders into Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. Any U.S. operation would likely require broader coordination and longer-term engagement. This creates risks of mission creep and a renewed U.S. footprint in Africa after years of drawdowns.

Failing to respond, however, risks worsening sectarian violence and undermining U.S. credibility on religious freedom issues. The administration’s next steps could set a precedent for how the United States responds to mass violence against civilian populations, particularly where extremist groups exploit weak governance.

Despite State Department Denial, Reporting Suggests U.S. Will Soon Strike Ground Targets In Venezuela

Summary
Reporting from October 31 claims the Trump administration has authorized plans for ground strikes on cartel targets inside Venezuela. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly denied the accuracy of these reports, while separate developments indicate Venezuela is deepening security ties with Russia in response to U.S. pressure. Despite conflicting narratives, data suggests the U.S. has enough assets in the region to conduct shaping operations in the form of strikes on Venezuela.

Findings

• Initial Reporting: On October 31, the Miami Herald reported that the Trump administration has planned and confirmed strikes on Soles Cartel sites inside Venezuela (Miami Herald). The publication claims that an administration “insider” provided the information (Miami Herald). The article also suggests President Maduro could be a target of U.S. strikes or operations (Miami Herald). It also cited a previous Wall Street Journal publication, which claims the administration has identified cartel targets linked to the Venezuelan government (Miami Herald).

• Rubio’s Response: On October 31, Secretary Rubio posted on X that the Miami Herald story is fake due to inaccurate insider knowledge. Rubio’s statement suggests the United States is not planning to conduct ground strikes on targets in Venezuela.

• Russian Assets: In response to U.S. pressure, President Maduro asked Russia and China to increase military aid. On October 28, a Russian Il-76 transport aircraft reportedly landed in Caracas (Defense News). Previously, Il-76 transports have brought weapons systems, parts, and Wagner group mercenaries abroad, suggesting this aircraft could have brought advanced communications equipment or advisory personnel (Defense News).

Why This Matters
The credible possibility of U.S. strikes on cartel and military facilities in Venezuela has led to a buildup of forces by Caracas. Additionally, it prematurely escalates the U.S.-Venezuelan confrontation, which may be intended to coerce deeper diplomatic overtures by Maduro and his regime, or to induce the elements of civil disunity, revolt, and a possible coup.

The $50 million bounty on Maduro issued by the U.S. government is still active.

Pentagon Reportedly Clears Tomahawk Missiles For Ukraine, Awaiting Trump’s Decision

Summary
On October 31, CNN reported that the Pentagon had approved the donation of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. The Pentagon determined that donations would not deplete stockpiles. As of November 2, President Trump stated he is not considering giving the asset to Ukraine, but that such a stance could change.

Findings

• Background: On October 16, President Trump held a phone call with President Putin to discuss “Trade between Russia and the United States when the War with Ukraine is over,” as well as plans for a bilateral meeting in Budapest, Hungary (The Intel Brief). On October 18, Trump hosted President Zelenskyy at the White House, and reportedly urged Kyiv to accept Russia’s terms, which included ceding the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts to Moscow (The Intel Brief). During this period, the Budapest meeting between Trump and Putin was postponed, and Trump toyed with the idea of sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, a decision largely viewed as a negotiating strategy, threat, and flex (The Intel Brief).

• Pentagon Approval: On October 31, CNN reported that the Pentagon had approved plans to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles (CNN). The decision to send the missiles is reportedly sitting with Trump, but as of November 2 is not under consideration (CNN). The decision is subject to change.

• Russia’s Response: When asked about the U.S. giving Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine in mid-October, Putin stated that “If such missiles are used to strike Russian territory, our response will be very serious, if not devastating. Let them think about that” (X).

Why This Matters
There is growing controversy around this decision, which has much to do with the operational requirements of the Tomahawk missile suite.

Early commentary on the decision to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine revolved around the question of numbers; specifically, if the U.S. should dip into its strategic arsenal to provide Ukraine such a major long-range strike capability.

Now, since the Pentagon has determined the donations would not deplete stockpiles, the discussion is revolving around whether we should rather than if we can.

This is because employing the BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile system requires, at the tactical level, a robust command and control, intelligence, and operator “kill chain,” meaning the use of donated Tomahawk missiles would almost certainly mean direct American involvement in the war in Ukraine.

End Brief

That concludes this brief.

Thank you for reading!
— Nick