On 14 June, Kuwait issued a new set of eight decrees withdrawing or revoking the nationality of a total of 2,193. This wave, one of the heaviest since the launch of the citizenship review campaign in March 2024, marks a further tightening in a case that has become central to the Kuwaiti State. The authorities present these decisions as a corrective action to combat fraud, prohibited dual nationalities and administrative irregularities. Critics see it as an instrument of political, social and identity control, in a country where nationality gives access to essential rights: public employment, housing, social benefits, care, mobility and transmission of status to relatives.
The last publication of the Official Journal,Kuwait Alyawmdo not give details of the individual reasons. It lists the names and decrees. Seven texts remove citizenship from 2,192 persons, as well as persons who had obtained citizenship through dependence or association. An eighth decree revokes the nationality of an additional person. The legal distinction between withdrawal, cancellation and revocation exists in Kuwaiti law. For those affected, however, the effect may be the same: loss of passport, civil status, social rights and sometimes the most basic legal security. The current wave therefore places the issue of Kuwaiti nationality at the heart of a broader debate on the authority of the executive, the absence of Parliament and the limits of judicial review.
Eight decrees and one political figure
The eight decrees issued on 14 June draw up a massive and organised operation. Decree No. 90 of 2026 covers 26 persons and those associated with them by association. Decree 91 concerns five persons and their dependants. Decree No. 92 is the heart of the series, with 1,594 persons deprived of their nationality, as well as those who acquired it by addiction. Decree No. 93 affects 491 persons. Decree No. 94 deals with the revocation of one person. Decrees Nos. 95, 96 and 97 concern respectively four, two and 70 persons, with the usual effects on dependents or connected persons.
This dependency mechanism considerably broadens the actual scope of decisions. In the Kuwaiti system, the loss of nationality of a principal holder may affect spouses, children or persons who had acquired status by family affiliation. The official figure of 2,193 cases does not always say how many lives are directly affected. An administrative decision may affect a whole home, change the status of children, block documents, suspend benefits or open a period of uncertainty about residence. The case is not only legal. It is family, social and economic.
The authorities have not published a detailed justification for each case in this series. This lack of individualized motives feeds critics. The Government claims that the campaign is aimed at persons who have obtained citizenship by fraud, false documents or in violation of the double nationality ban. However, without a precise explanation, the persons concerned and their relatives are often in a difficult position. They must understand, challenge or regularize a decision whose foundations are not always publicly disclosed. Transparency therefore becomes one of the main issues.
Campaign started in March 2024
The 14th June wave is part of a broader campaign launched in early 2024. As early as March, the authorities began reviewing nationality files and publishing lists of persons concerned. The process accelerated after the suspension of parliamentary life in May 2024. He then dissolved the National Assembly and suspended several constitutional articles for up to four years. This decision transferred part of the legislative power to the executive and cabinet. It also reduced institutional spaces in which sensitive decisions could be challenged or publicly debated.
This political context is essential. Kuwait was long regarded as one of the most open systems in the Gulf, with a parliament capable of questioning ministers, blocking texts and causing government crises. This singularity has also produced years of paralysis. The authorities justified the suspension of the Assembly by the need to put an end to blockages, correct drifts and protect the best interests of the State. But the absence of Parliament changes the nature of the citizenship debate. Withdrawals of nationality no longer face organised parliamentary opposition. They come from a much less exposed administrative and executive mechanics.
The committees responsible for the file play a central role. The Supreme Commission for the review of Kuwaiti nationality was reorganized in 2026 under the authority of the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior. It examines cases, recommends withdrawals or cancellations, and then decisions are submitted to the firm or published by decree. This architecture gives the executive considerable power over one of the most sensitive rights. It also reflects a desire to treat citizenship as a matter of national security, administrative integrity and social composition.
Official reasons: fraud, dual nationality, identity
The official speech is based on three main reasons. The first is fraud. The authorities claim to have identified files based on false documents, false filiations or incorrect statements. In some cases, cases of family fraud were highlighted to show that networks would have obtained nationality irregularly over several generations. In the Government’s view, correcting these issues is about protecting the law and defending the rights of legitimate citizens.
The second reason is dual nationality. Kuwait normally prohibits its citizens from holding another nationality without permission. The authorities state that they want to enforce this rule, particularly in cases where persons have retained or acquired another passport. This is a sensitive issue in the Gulf, where tribal, family and economic ties often cross borders. It is even more so in Kuwait, a rich but demographically prudent country, where citizenship opens up access to important public benefits.
The third reason is the preservation of national identity. Kuwaiti officials speak of the national fabric, stability and correction of allegedly mismanaged files. This formulation resonates strongly in a country marked by the Iraqi invasion of 1990, by the debates on the Bidoons, by the balance between ethnic, naturalized and foreign residents, and by the fear of dilution of citizenship. Nationality is more than just a document. It defines political affiliation, access to the welfare state and place in the social hierarchy.
These grounds cannot be ruled out with a backhand. A State has the right to verify fraudulent records and to protect the validity of its documents. The problem is the scale, procedures, remedies and collective effects. When thousands of cases are dealt with in successive waves, the border between the fight against fraud and the policy of national redefinition becomes more difficult to trace. It is precisely this border that human rights defenders ask to examine.
Cultural and public figures already affected
The campaign has not only affected anonymous people. In previous waves, public figures, artists, athletes, preachers, journalists and influencers were involved. In particular, regional media reported the withdrawal of the nationality of cultural figures, including known actors, sometimes even after their death. Names such as Nawal Al-Kuwaitia, Dawood Hussein, Noha Nabil, Abdulmohsen Al-Suhaiel and Abdulrazzaq Ibrahim Al-Khalaf, known as Burzaiqa, have been circulated in this context. Each case falls under separate procedures. However, their symbolic significance is strong.
When an artist, actor or media figure loses his nationality, the decision goes beyond the administrative record. It touches collective memory. It questions how a country recognizes those who have participated in its culture, television, music or public image. Posthumous withdrawals have struck the minds, because they seem to legally erase a status after the person has been socially recognized for years. They also show that the campaign is not just about recent cases. It can reopen old records, past naturalizations and long-established filiations.
Journalists and critical voices are another sensitive category. Press organizations have reported cases where loss of nationality has been added to prosecution, restrictions or political tensions. The Kuwaiti authorities reject the idea of a campaign of repression and insist on the legal basis. NGOs replied that nationality must never become a disguised political sanction. The presence of public figures in the lists therefore feeds a doubt: are withdrawals only administratively correct, or also authoritarian re-focusing of the public domain?
Women and families on the front line
The issue of women is central to criticism. Several earlier waves concerned a large number of women who had acquired citizenship by marriage or other naturalization mechanisms. Human rights organizations believe that recent reforms and withdrawals have disproportionately affected wives, widows or naturalized women. In some cases, loss of nationality may occur after years of life in Kuwait, marriage, children and social integration. It can turn a family trajectory into a brutal administrative crisis.
This family dimension makes decisions particularly burdensome. A person who loses his or her nationality may lose access to benefits, public employment, care, housing or certain property rights. Children may be challenged according to the transmission procedure. Spouses may be confronted with residency procedures. Bank accounts, identity documents, civil acts and school procedures may be affected. Nationality, in this context, is not an abstract symbol. She is the key to everyday life.
Rights defenders also warn about the risk of statelessness. Kuwait already has a large Bidoon population, i.e. stateless persons or persons without recognized nationality. If withdrawals affect people who have no other effective citizenship, the campaign can increase this vulnerable population. The government claims to target fraud and dual nationality, which would sometimes imply the existence of another status. Critics call for individualized safeguards to ensure that people do not end up without nationality, clear remedies and adequate protection.
Judicial review as a weak point of the system
The most contested point remains the control of decisions. In Kuwait, citizenship cases are largely beyond ordinary judicial control. This situation limits the ability of the persons concerned to effectively challenge withdrawal or revocation before an independent judge. Authorities can argue that decisions follow the law, committee recommendations and published decrees. Critics argue that formal legality is not sufficient when the right of appeal is weak or absent.
This lack of control is all the more sensitive as decisions are massive. An individual procedure, based on accessible evidence and the possibility of contesting, does not have the same meaning as a publication of hundreds or thousands of names. The persons concerned must know what they are accused of, be able to produce documents, obtain a reasoned response and have access to an impartial body. Without these guarantees, the campaign may create general insecurity. Even those who are not affected may wonder if their family file, sometimes old, will be reopened.
The authorities argue that the nationality file is linked to sovereignty. This argument is classic. Citizenship is the sovereign power of the State. But international law and the basic norms of the rule of law also impose limits: prohibition of arbitrary action, protection against statelessness, non-discrimination, rights of defence and proportionality. The Kuwaiti debate is at this point of tension between national sovereignty and individual guarantees.
A political turning point for Kuwait
The campaign of withdrawals of nationality reveals a wider turning point. Kuwait seems to want to redefine the contours of citizenship, national identity and the relationship between individual and State. This choice comes after years of tensions between government and Parliament, debates on corruption, institutional fatigue and economic blockages. The executive presents its action as a reorganization. His critics see it as a concentration of power and a reduction of civic space. Nationality then became the ground for part of the new Kuwaiti political contract.
This evolution distinguishes Kuwait from its traditional image. The country has long been described as the Gulf parliamentary exception. Even imperfect, its political system allowed for public debate more intense than in several neighbouring monarchies. The suspension of Parliament, the reorganization of laws and the campaign of nationality change this landscape. They bring Kuwait closer to a more centralized model, where sensitive decisions are made by decree and the room for dispute is reduced. This transformation is not limited to institutions. It affects the very definition of who belongs to the nation.
The regional context reinforces this security logic. Tensions with Iran, regional war, the US military presence, the vulnerability of infrastructure and Gulf rivalries have increased the sensitivity of states to issues of allegiance, borders and loyalty. In this climate, control of nationality may appear, in the eyes of power, as a security tool. The danger is that this tool will become too broad. A security policy can eventually weaken families, institutions and confidence in the State.
A company under uncertainty
The most lasting effect could be administrative fear. When thousands lose their nationality in successive series, society as a whole observes. Naturalized citizens, mixed families, women who have acquired status by marriage, descendants of old records and persons with cross-border ties may feel vulnerable. Public discussions are becoming more cautious. Critics hesitate. Family documents take on new value. Administrative procedures are becoming a source of anxiety.
This uncertainty can produce economic effects. A person whose status is contested may lose his or her job, renounce investment, sell property or seek a solution abroad. Affected families can see their accounts, businesses or contracts weakened. Foreign investors also observe the country’s legal certainty. Even if the majority of cases concern internal cases of nationality, the image of a State capable of withdrawing massively from the statutes may give rise to a wider concern about legal predictability. The cost therefore exceeds those directly appointed.
The June 14 wave does not close the case. On the contrary, it confirms that the campaign continues and that it can still expand. The authorities have not announced an end to the process. The committees continue to review the files. Successive decrees show that the review of citizenship has become a state policy. The issue is now one of safeguards: publication of reasons, effective remedy, protection against statelessness, individual examination and public debate. Without these guarantees, each new list will reinforce the impression that Kuwaiti nationality is no longer merely a right, but a revocable status by a procedure largely controlled by the executive.
Kuwait thus faces a long-term choice. It can deal with real fraud with transparent procedures, individualized evidence and clear remedies. It can also pursue a policy of massive withdrawals that redefines citizenship in administrative waves. The difference is great. In the first case, the State strengthens the law. In the second, it creates a lasting fear around national belonging. The latest series of 2,193 withdrawals and revocations shows that this issue is no longer marginal. It has become one of the most sensitive tests of the new Kuwaiti political course.
