A House Democrat who’s been at the forefront of congressional efforts to scrutinize the federal government’s use of commercial spyware wants the Commerce Department to brief Capitol Hill amid apprehension that the Trump administration might further embrace the technology.
Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., sent a letter to the department Thursday seeking a briefing on several developments stemming from Immigration and Customs Enforcement acknowledging its use of Paragon’s Graphite spyware, as well as an American company purchasing a controlling stake in Israel’s NSO Group. The Commerce Department sanctioned NSO Group under former President Joe Biden after widespread abuse allegations, including eavesdropping on government officials, activists and journalists.
“The Trump Administration appears to be broadly receptive to using commercial spyware to infiltrate cell phones and allowing U.S. investment in sanctioned spyware companies like NSO Group,” Lee wrote in her letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, which CyberScoop is first reporting.
NSO Group’s new executive chairman, David Friedman, is a former Trump ambassador to Israel and was his bankruptcy attorney. He has said in November that he expects the administration will be “receptive” to using NSO Group tech.
“Given those close ties between NSO Group and the Trump Administration, and the serious concerns about how NSO’s technology could be used to spy on Americans, we write to request information regarding the purchase of NSO Group by an American company and the potential usage of NSO Group spyware by federal law enforcement,” wrote Lee, who sits on the Oversight and Government Reform panel and is the top Democrat on its Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee.
Lee was one of the authors of a recent Democratic letter seeking confirmation of ICE’s use of Paragon’s Graphite, which ICE acknowledged. But they criticized the administration for not answering all their questions, in addition to being outraged.
In her latest letter, Lee asked the Commerce Department to brief Oversight and Government Reform Committee staff about internal department deliberations, Commerce communication with the White House and any outside conversations — including with Friedman — about government use of NSO Group technology or any other commercial spyware, and American investment in NSO.
NSO Group “appears to view the Trump administration as friendly to its interests in the United States, pitching itself as a vital tool for the U.S. government to safeguard national security,” Lee wrote, citing company court filings that it “is reasonably foreseeable that a law enforcement or intelligence agency of the United States will use Pegasus.”
The Biden administration sanctions, and court losses in a case against Meta, represented setbacks for NSO Group’s ambitions. And prior to the U.S. investment firm controlling stake purchase last fall, the Commerce Department under Trump rebuffed efforts to remove NSO Group from its sanctions list.
NSO Group maintains that its products are designed only to help law enforcement and intelligence fight terrorism and crime, and that it vets its customers in advance as well as investigates misuse. News accounts and other investigations have turned up a multitude of abuses.
There have been scattered reports of U.S. flirtation with using NSO Group technology. The FBI acknowledged it had bought a Pegasus license, but stopped short of deploying it. The Times of London reported that “it is believed” the Central Intelligence Agency used Pegasus spyware as part of a rescue mission last month for a U.S. airman downed in Iran.
U.S. states issued $3.45 billion in privacy-related fines to companies in 2025, a total larger than the last five years combined, according to research and advisory firm Gartner.
The increase is driven in part by stronger, more established privacy laws in states like California, new interstate partnerships built around enforcing laws across state lines, and a renewed focus to how AI and automation affect privacy.
The data indicates that “regulators are shifting their efforts away from awareness to full scale enforcement,” marking a significant shift from even the last few years in how aggressively states are investigating and penalizing companies for privacy law violations.
“This is increasingly becoming the standard in 2026 and for the coming two years,” Gartner’s analysis concludes.
Privacy related fines have gone up significantly in recent years. (Source: Gartner)
The California Consumer Privacy Act had consumer privacy provisions go live in 2023, but for years enforcement was largely dormant. According to Nader Heinen, a data protection and AI analyst at Gartner and co-author of the research, that enforcement lag mirrors the way other major privacy laws, like Europe’s Global Data Protection Regulation, have been carried out in order to “lead with a bit of guidance” for companies while using enforcement sparingly.
But that era appears to be over. In 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency has used the law to pursue violators across a wide range of industries— not just large conglomerates, but smaller and mid-sized companies in tech, the auto industry, and consumer products, including off-the-shelf goods and apparel.
Heinen said some businesses “weren’t paying attention” and may have been lulled into a false sense of complacency as regulators spun up their enforcement teams, leading to a harsh 2025.
“Unfortunately what happens when so much time passes between the legislation and starting enforcement regularly, is a lot of organizations let their privacy program atrophy,” he said.
States have also sought to combine their resources to target and penalize privacy violators across state lines. Last year, ten states came together to form the Consortium of Privacy Regulators, pledging to coordinate investigations and enforcement of common privacy laws around accessing, deleting and preventing the sale of personal information.
Beyond laws like the CCPA, states have been updating existing privacy and data-protection laws to more directly address harms from automated decision-making technologies, including AI. State privacy regulators are especially focused on how personal or private data is used to train AI systems and help it make inferences.
Gartner expects privacy fines to further increase in the coming years and Heinen said states will likely again lead the way on building the legal infrastructure to enforce data privacy in the AI age as they become the main conduit for lingering anxiety about the potential negative impacts of the technology.
“You have to put yourself in the position of these state legislatures,” Heinen said. “Their constituencies – the voting public – is telling them we’re worried about AI. AI anxiety is a thing. Everybody’s worried about whether AI is going to take their job or impact their capacity to find a job, so they want to see legislation in place to protect them.”
This past month, House Republicans unveiled their latest attempt to pass comprehensive federal privacy legislation with a bill that would preempt tougher state laws like those in California. In particular, the CCPA gives residents a private right of action – the legal right to sue companies directly – for violation of privacy laws.
On Monday, Tom Kemp, executive director of the California Privacy Protection Agency, wrote to House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., to oppose the bill, arguing it would provide “a ceiling” for Americans’ data privacy protections rather than a “floor” to build on.
“Preemption would strip away important existing state privacy provisions that protect tens of millions of Americans now,” Kemp wrote. “That would be a significant step backward in privacy protection at a time when individuals are increasingly concerned about their privacy and security online, and when challenges from data-intensive new technologies such as AI are developing quickly.”
Lawmakers at a hearing Tuesday explored ways to beef up punishments for ransomware attacks against hospitals, possibly by labeling them as more severe crimes.
One proposal floated at the House Homeland Security Committee hearing, to treat ransomware attacks as terrorism, is an idea Congress has flirted with before. Another would be to press prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in attacks on hospitals where death resulted — something German authorities also once pondered.
A former top FBI cyber official, Cynthia Kaiser, put forward both ideas at the hearing, a joint meeting of the subcommittees on Border Security and Enforcement and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection on cybercrime, drawing questions and interest from members.
“I believe there are no penalties too severe for individuals that would target our health care system,” said Mississippi Rep. Michael Guest, chair of the border subcommittee, whose home state of Mississippi’s health care clinics closed following a February ransomware attack.
The suggestions stem from a growing focus by ransomware attackers on the health care sector, with incidents doubling from 238 in 2024 to 460 in 2025 according to FBI statistics, making it the top targeted sector.
Kaiser, now senior vice of the Halcyon ransomware research center, said terrorism designations from the State, Treasury and Justice departments could lead to further sanctions, restricted travel and other punishments. Justice Department guidance on homicide charges could clarify its authorities, she said.
“It sounds like the language is there, it just has not been applied in these circumstances,” said Rep. Lou Correa of California, the top Democrat on Guest’s subpanel.
The notion of more closely entwining cyberattacks and terrorism is something both Congress and the executive branch have examined recently.
The fiscal 2025 Senate intelligence authorization bill would have directly linked ransomware to terrorism, although the final version of the bill that became law was less explicit than the original Senate language. The Treasury Department last month asked for public feedback on changing a terrorism risk insurance program to address cyber-related losses.
The Trump administration’s national cyber strategy advocates for taking a more offensive approach to hackers. It released an executive order on cybercrime and fraud the same day it published the strategy. Kaiser said the proposals are in line with those approaches.
Hackers know their attacks could end lives, she said. “They have simply decided these deaths are someone else’s problem,” Kaiser said.
Authorities from 21 countries took down 53 domains and arrested four people allegedly involved in distributed denial-of-service operations used by more than 75,000 cybercriminals, Europol said Thursday.
The globally coordinated effort dubbed “Operation PowerOFF” disrupted booter services and seized and dismantled infrastructure, including servers and databases, that supported the DDoS-for-hire services, officials said.
Law enforcement agencies obtained data on more than 3 million alleged criminal user accounts from the seized databases, and ultimately sent more than 75,000 emails and letters to participants, warning them to halt their activities.
Officials from the countries involved in the operation also served 25 search warrants, removed more than 100 URLs advertising DDoS-for-hire services in search engine results and created search engine ads to target young people searching for DDoS-for-hire tools.
The operation, which is ongoing, primarily targets IP stressors or DDoS booters that cybercriminals use to inundate websites, servers and networks with junk traffic, rendering legitimate services inaccessible.
Officials described DDoS-for-hire tools as prolific and easily accessible, often including tutorials that allow non-tech savvy people to initiate attacks on various organizations.
“Attacks are often regionally focused, with users targeting servers and websites within their continent, and directed at a wide range of targets including online marketplaces, telecommunications providers and other web-based services,” Europol said in a news release. “Motivations vary from curiosity to ideological purposes linked to hacktivism, as well as financial gain through extortion or the disruption of competitors’ services.”
Operation PowerOFF is supported by multiple law enforcement agencies from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Thailand.
The men violated U.S. export controls laws by scheming to divert massive quantities of the high-performance servers assembled in the United States to China.