Former Deputy National Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Timi Frank, has accused the Presidency of attempting to inflate the significance of a reported letter from United States President Donald Trump to President Bola Tinubu, alleging that the correspondence was being deployed to create a favourable political narrative for the administration.
Frank challenged the Presidency to publish the full document and establish its authenticity, arguing that the reported correspondence, as described, amounted to little more than a diplomatic acknowledgement of security cooperation between Nigeria and the United States.
He rejected any suggestion that the letter constituted an endorsement of Tinubu’s leadership, economic policies or administration, or signalled support for his political ambitions.
“The Presidency is only trying to change the narrative by presenting it as something more than it is,” Frank alleged.
He also questioned why the correspondence, reportedly dated July 6, only became public much later.
According to him, the delayed disclosure raised questions about the political significance being attached to the document, particularly if it was being presented as evidence of a major diplomatic or political breakthrough.
Frank contrasted the reported correspondence with former President Muhammadu Buhari’s invitation to the White House during Trump’s first term, arguing that a direct presidential engagement carried considerably greater diplomatic weight than a letter.
Frank’s criticism extended to Nigeria’s reported multimillion-dollar engagement of lobbying firms in the United States, which he said raised questions about the government’s attempt to manage its international image.
He questioned the wisdom of committing substantial public resources to reputation management when Nigeria continues to face intense scrutiny over insecurity, governance and the protection of citizens.
For Frank, the issue goes beyond the reported Trump correspondence. He argued that no amount of diplomatic messaging, lobbying or public relations can substitute for the hard work of building credibility through governance and measurable results.
“Ultimately, credibility and integrity cannot be conferred by a letter, a diplomatic exchange or a public relations campaign. They are earned through transparent leadership, accountability, respect for democratic institutions and faithful service to the people,” he said.
The intervention adds another layer to the growing controversy surrounding Nigeria’s efforts to defend its international image amid criticism over insecurity and allegations of attacks against Christian communities.
At the heart of the dispute is an increasingly pointed question: **Is the Federal Government investing more energy in controlling the narrative abroad than confronting the realities that produced the narrative in the first place?**
The Tinubu administration has maintained that Nigeria’s security crisis is not a state-sponsored campaign of religious persecution, arguing that Christians and Muslims alike have suffered from terrorism, banditry, communal violence and other criminal activities.
The government has also insisted that security agencies are confronting violent groups irrespective of their religious or ethnic identities.
But as criticism intensifies in Washington and at home, the administration faces growing pressure to demonstrate that its response to insecurity is not limited to diplomacy and strategic communications.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the government’s international engagement may be judged less by the number of lobbying contracts secured or diplomatic letters received than by whether Nigerians in vulnerable communities are actually safer.