ANALYSIS: Examining social media claims linking USAID to terrorism, food insecurity in Nigeria

During a recent hearing of the U.S. Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency, Congressman Scott Perry alleged that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had inadvertently funded terrorist organisations, including Boko Haram (BH), in Nigeria. While these claims are currently under investigation, they have sparked widespread debate on social media. Some online discussions have linked the controversy to Nigeria’s ongoing farmer-herder conflicts in the Middle Belt region and the broader issue of food insecurity.

Social Media Reactions

On 13 February, a post by Alex Jones on X (formerly Twitter) claimed that an investigation by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had compelled the US Congress to admit to a long-standing history of financing terrorist groups, including Boko Haram. His post gained significant traction, with over 41.4 million views by noon of 14 February, igniting discussions across digital platforms.

One commentator wrote:

“The ‘farmer-herder’ crisis in the Middle Belt and the bandit and BH crisis is beginning to make sense. All sponsored by USAID.” – @adokwuandy

Beyond terrorism, several social media users have also speculated on a connection between USAID’s funding, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and food insecurity in Nigeria. These claims remain largely anecdotal and require further scrutiny.

Examining the Facts

While the farmer-herder conflict is undeniably linked to food insecurity in Nigeria, media narratives linking USAID’s funding to these conflicts require critical evaluation and should be approached with caution.

As a researcher with over eight years of experience studying the farmer-herder conflict, I can attest that the root causes of these disputes are primarily governance-related rather than geopolitical. My socio-legal research highlights that the persistent conflict is largely due to the absence of sustainable governance frameworks for the use of agricultural resources like land and water. This includes failures in policy-making, lack of enforcement, and insufficient accountability. The four key governance challenges that have triggered and exacerbated these conflicts are:

1. Weak Legal and Policy Frameworks – The absence of clear, adaptable, and sustainable governance structures for managing Nigeria’s shrinking land and water resources has fueled tensions. Poor environmental impact assessments and failure to consider socio-economic factors such as infrastructure, literacy levels, and poverty have worsened the situation.

2. Stakeholder Exclusion – Policies affecting pastoralists and farmers often lack proper consultation, leading to resentment, resistance, and violent clashes. Ensuring inclusive governance processes is crucial.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

3. Regulatory Overlaps and Security Gaps – Conflicting laws, unclear agency mandates, and weak inter-agency coordination have resulted in fragmented regulations and the rise of informal security groups, further escalating violence.

4. Power Dynamics and Inequity – Political influence has shaped law and policy making, often at the expense of equity and fairness. This has led to marginalisation, non-compliance, and violent pushback from affected communities.

Pathways for Sustainable Conflict Prevention

To address these challenges, a multi-faceted approach is required, balancing legal, economic, and environmental considerations:

• Controlled Open Grazing in Designated Areas – Pastoralism should be restricted to non-arable lands in arid and semi-arid regions after thorough environmental impact assessments and ensuring stakeholder participation. This should be regulated under a community-based natural resource management programme, where local herders oversee designated grazing zones under legally binding agreements.
• Privately Managed Ranching Systems -Private investors should be allowed to establish grazing reserves, leasing spaces to herders. For larger-scale cattle farming (herds exceeding 200), modern intensive livestock farming should be promoted, with wealthier investors funding infrastructure and advanced breeding programmes.
• Small-Scale Private Ownership – Individuals should be permitted to own and rear up to 100 cattle on privately acquired, fenced land within designated states, preventing further encroachment into farmlands.

Additionally, the ECOWAS Regulation on Transhumance and its Protocol should be suspended until a thorough review is conducted. This review must ensure that adequate infrastructure and enforcement mechanisms are in place to regulate cross-border pastoralism effectively. Without such measures, the free movement of livestock across West African borders will continue to exacerbate conflicts and strain local resources, ultimately worsening food insecurity.

Conclusion

While the current social media narratives surrounding USAID, terrorism, and food insecurity in Nigeria are concerning and should be scrutinised critically, it’s important to focus on the root causes of the farmer-herder conflict. The conflict remains a governance issue at its core. Addressing it requires a shift from speculative narratives to evidence-based policy reforms that ensure equitable access to resources, legal clarity, and inclusive decision-making.