NSO Group Says It’s Changing—But Can It Be Trusted?
In early January 2026, Israeli spyware firm NSO Group released a new “transparency report” as part of what it calls a “new phase of accountability.” Yet critics remain unconvinced. The report, which arrives amid NSO’s renewed push to enter the U.S. market, omits key data—like how many government clients were cut off for human rights violations. For users and watchdogs alike, this raises a pressing question: Is NSO truly reforming, or simply rebranding?
A Familiar Pattern of Omission
Unlike past disclosures, NSO’s latest report avoids specifics that would demonstrate real oversight. There’s no mention of rejected customers, terminated contracts, or internal investigations tied to abuse of its Pegasus spyware. Instead, the document leans heavily on aspirational language—pledging respect for human rights while offering zero verifiable proof. To longtime observers, this feels less like transparency and more like public relations theater.
Why the Timing Matters Now
NSO’s sudden emphasis on accountability isn’t happening in a vacuum. In 2025, a consortium of U.S. investors acquired the company, installing new leadership—including former Trump administration official David Friedman as executive chairman. With fresh backing and a revamped executive team, NSO is aggressively lobbying to be removed from the U.S. Commerce Department’s Entity List, which currently bars American companies from doing business with it. Re-entering the U.S. market is clearly the endgame.
The U.S. Entity List Hangs Over NSO
Since 2021, NSO has been blacklisted by the U.S. government over credible evidence that its tools were used to target journalists, activists, and even U.S. officials. Removal from the Entity List would open doors to lucrative contracts with American law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But critics argue that without concrete reforms—and independent verification—lifting sanctions would be premature and dangerous.
Experts See a Calculated Rebrand
Digital rights advocates and cybersecurity researchers aren’t buying NSO’s narrative. “This report reads like a compliance brochure, not a transparency document,” said one senior researcher at Citizen Lab, a group that has tracked Pegasus deployments for years. Others note that NSO still refuses third-party audits or meaningful disclosure about its client list—two basic expectations for any company claiming ethical surveillance practices.
The Human Cost Behind the Headlines
While NSO frames its technology as a tool for fighting crime and terrorism, real-world cases tell a different story. From Saudi dissidents to Mexican anti-corruption investigators, Pegasus has repeatedly surfaced in attacks against civil society. Even after global outcry, including lawsuits from Apple and Meta, NSO’s operational model remains largely unchanged: sell powerful hacking tools to governments with minimal safeguards.
New Leadership, Same Core Business?
The departure of CEO Yaron Shohat and founder Omri Lavie signaled a shift—but not necessarily a substantive one. David Friedman’s appointment brings political clout, especially among certain Washington circles, yet his background offers little reassurance on digital rights. Meanwhile, NSO continues marketing its next-gen spyware, suggesting that product evolution, not ethical overhaul, remains the priority.
What Would Real Transparency Look Like?
True accountability would include publishing a full list of government clients (with redactions only where strictly necessary), detailing all misuse incidents, and allowing independent technical audits of its software. It would also mean compensating victims of unlawful surveillance—a step NSO has never taken. Without these actions, pledges ring hollow, experts say.
The Broader Spyware Industry Problem
NSO isn’t alone. Dozens of firms now sell similar intrusion tools, often with even less scrutiny. But as the most infamous name in the sector, NSO sets a precedent. If it successfully re-enters the U.S. market without robust safeguards, it could greenlight a new wave of unregulated commercial spyware sales—undermining privacy globally.
U.S. Policymakers Face a Critical Choice
Congress and the Biden administration now hold the keys. Should they entertain NSO’s appeals, they risk normalizing an industry built on exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities and bypassing encryption. On the other hand, maintaining strict controls could encourage genuine reform—or push NSO toward less scrupulous markets. Either way, the decision will shape digital security for years.
Public Trust Isn’t Bought—It’s Earned
No amount of glossy reports or high-profile hires can rebuild credibility overnight. For a company linked to some of the most invasive digital attacks of the past decade, trust must be demonstrated through consistent, verifiable action—not press releases. Until then, skepticism isn’t just warranted—it’s necessary.
The Road Ahead for NSO and Digital Rights
As NSO courts U.S. regulators in 2026, the world is watching. Will accountability become more than a buzzword? Or will this latest transparency effort join the long list of empty promises from an industry that thrives in the shadows? One thing is clear: without enforceable standards and real consequences for abuse, spyware vendors like NSO will keep operating with impunity—no matter how polished their new image appears.
