NSO Group transparency claims are facing renewed scrutiny as critics push back against what they see as a carefully staged attempt to rebrand the controversial spyware maker for the US market. The Israeli firm, long linked to global surveillance scandals, released a new transparency report while describing the moment as a fresh chapter of accountability. Yet, for many observers, the document raises more questions than it answers and deepens doubts about the company’s true intentions.
NSO Group transparency claims come at a sensitive time for the company. After years of international backlash, NSO is working to repair its image while seeking removal from a US government blacklist that has effectively locked it out of American markets. The latest report promises respect for human rights and stronger oversight of customers. However, it avoids hard data that once formed the backbone of earlier disclosures.
Unlike previous years, the new transparency report omits figures showing how many government clients were rejected, suspended, or terminated due to abuse. It also fails to state how many customers NSO currently serves. Critics argue that without numbers, the commitments read more like marketing language than evidence of reform. As a result, the report has fueled skepticism rather than confidence.
Industry experts believe NSO Group transparency claims are closely tied to its lobbying campaign in Washington. The company was placed on the US Entity List after officials concluded its tools had enabled repression and surveillance of journalists, activists, and political opponents. Being listed blocks access to US technology and investment, making removal a critical business goal.
Since being added to the Entity List under President Joe Biden, NSO has repeatedly argued that it has changed. The company intensified those efforts after President Donald Trump returned to office, hoping for a more favorable stance. So far, those efforts have failed to produce results, despite signs of shifting attitudes in Washington.
Last year marked a major turning point for NSO. A group of US investors acquired the company, triggering sweeping leadership changes designed to signal a break from the past. Former Trump adviser David Friedman was installed as executive chairman. Longtime chief executive Yaron Shohat stepped aside. Omri Lavie, the last remaining founder still involved in operations, also exited the company.
In a statement included in the report, Friedman said NSO’s tools make the world safer when used by the right governments. Yet the document avoids naming a single country where those tools operate. For critics, that silence reinforces concerns that the company still resists meaningful transparency when it matters most.
Natalia Krapiva of Access Now argues the strategy is familiar. She says NSO Group transparency claims look like part of a long-running pattern where spyware firms change leadership, publish ethics documents, and continue business largely unchanged. According to her, real reform requires proof, not promises.
Krapiva warns that the US government should remain cautious. She believes the transparency report is designed to influence policymakers rather than inform the public. Without verifiable data, she says, there is no way to judge whether NSO has truly addressed the harms tied to its surveillance technology.
Political context adds to the tension. In late December, the Trump administration lifted sanctions against three executives linked to the Intellexa spyware network. Some analysts saw the move as a signal that Washington may soften its stance toward parts of the spyware industry. That development has raised fears among rights groups that pressure tactics could work.
Against that backdrop, NSO’s latest report stands out for what it leaves out. In its 2024 disclosure, the company said it opened three investigations into alleged misuse. It claimed to have cut ties with one unnamed client and imposed corrective measures on another. Even then, details were limited, but the presence of numbers allowed some level of external assessment.
Earlier reports went further. In disclosures covering 2022 and 2023, NSO said it suspended or terminated six government customers, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. A 2021 report claimed five customers were disconnected following investigations and five more engagements were ended over human rights concerns. Those figures, while still opaque, offered benchmarks.
The newest report, covering 2025, removes that context entirely. There is no mention of investigations opened or clients terminated. There is also no reference to lost revenue from rejecting abusive customers, a statistic NSO once highlighted to show financial sacrifice. For watchdogs, this retreat signals reduced accountability.
When asked to explain the missing data, NSO did not respond. Tech reporters sought clarification from company representatives but received no answers before publication. That silence has only amplified criticism from researchers who have tracked spyware abuse for years.
John Scott-Railton of The Citizen Lab says the report fails its basic purpose. He argues that transparency requires measurable facts that outsiders can test and verify. Without them, claims of reform carry little weight, especially given NSO’s history of disputed statements.
Scott-Railton adds that NSO Group transparency claims must be viewed through the lens of past behavior. Over more than a decade, investigations by journalists and researchers have linked the company’s spyware to abuses across multiple regions. Promises alone, he says, cannot erase that record.
For US policymakers, the question now is whether cosmetic change is enough. Removing NSO from the Entity List would reopen access to American capital and technology. Rights advocates argue such a move would send the wrong signal unless backed by concrete proof of reform.
As scrutiny grows, NSO’s future in the US remains uncertain. The company insists it has entered a new era. Critics counter that true accountability starts with data, disclosure, and independent oversight. Until then, NSO Group transparency claims are likely to remain under a cloud of doubt.
