Congresswoman Mace’s critique focuses on her assertion that Nigeria remains one of the “deadliest countries in the world for Christians” and that its removal from the CPC list undermines U.S. foreign-policy commitments to religious-freedom standards. She posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the delisting sends the wrong message about accountability and human rights. 

According to background, the “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) list is part of the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) framework. The list identifies countries which the U.S. Government deems to engage in or tolerate “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations of religious freedom. Nigeria was first designated a CPC in December 2020 during the prior U.S. administration, based on assessments of widespread communal violence, extremist attacks and documented persecution of religious minorities. 

The Biden administration removed Nigeria from the CPC list in November 2021, citing improvements in Nigeria’s record and reform efforts. Critics like Mace argue either that the improvements were not sufficient or verifiable, or that the delisting was premature in light of continuing violence. Reports point out that Nigeria continues to face significant challenges: terrorism, communal conflict, radical-Islamist assaults and targeted violence against Christian communities. Nigeria’s government has rejected the CPC designation as based on “faulty data” and emphasized that the country is combating terrorism rather than targeting Christians specifically. 

The broader context is that Nigeria occupies a crucial position in both U.S. and global geopolitics. It is a large-population African democracy, a major energy producer, and a country facing complex security challenges across its northeastern regions, radical insurgencies and communal tensions throughout the Middle Belt. The status of religious-freedom protections is closely monitored by global partners, multilateral donors and human-rights NGOs. The U.S. decision-making on Nigeria therefore carries not only symbolic weight but also practical implications for broader U.S. policy on human-rights diplomacy, foreign assistance and strategic partnerships in the region.

For international business and investment, the debate matters: companies operating in Nigeria or considering entry must weigh country-risk profiles not just in terms of security or governance, but also social-stability and human-rights climates. A country flagged for religious-freedom violations may face reputational headwinds, potential supply-chain scrutiny, or investor hesitancy. The delisting may be interpreted—either domestically or by external stakeholders—as a loosening of oversight or a shift in U.S. priorities, which can affect risk-perception metrics.

From a diplomatic and policy-analysis standpoint, the objections raised by Mace highlight a key tension: how to balance U.S. strategic interests (energy, security, diplomacy) with normative commitments to rights and freedom. If the U.S. remains seen as lowering standards, it may undercut credibility in promoting democratic norms elsewhere. On the flip side, Nigeria’s authorities argue that heavy external criticism risks infringing on sovereignty and mis-representing the country’s security complexities.

What many observers are missing is how the CPC designation mechanism intersects with domestic U.S. politics. Mace’s criticism is linked to the broader partisan narrative in Washington where foreign-policy actions are increasingly viewed through a domestic political lens. Her statement contrasted the Biden administration’s move with Donald Trump’s earlier tougher public stance on Nigeria’s treatment of Christians, suggesting that the current removal undermines prior U.S. rhetoric and voter expectations regarding religious-freedom advocacy. 

As Nigeria continues to navigate security threats from groups such as Boko Haram and various militias, the question now is how both governments—U.S. and Nigeria—manage next steps. Will Nigeria’s performance on protecting vulnerable religious communities improve in measurable ways? Will the U.S. remain silent or will it re-assess and possibly re-designate Nigeria as a CPC? The answer may shape future U.S. foreign-assistance decisions, defence-cooperation frameworks and bilateral trust.

In concluding, the decision by the U.S. to delist Nigeria from its religious-freedom watch list is more than a bureaucratic change—it is a test of coherence between policy, principle and practice. U.S. lawmakers like Nancy Mace are signalling that they are watching whether this move reflects genuine progress in Nigeria, or a recalibration of U.S. priorities. The outcome will matter not only for religious-freedom advocacy but for the credibility of U.S. human-rights diplomacy globally.