Fact check: Наистина НСО охранява Делян Пеевски?

1. Why this question surfaced: Rationale and public concern

Reporting explains that scrutiny intensified when the use of official cars and security resources by high-profile figures became a public flashpoint, making Peevski a central example. Journalists documented that Peevski has been described as “using NSO security for over a year”, a claim highlighted alongside presidential choices about personal vehicles and symbolic gestures meant to show solidarity with NSO staff ^[1]. This context framed a broader debate about privilege, transparency, and the allocation of state security resources to politicians and business figures, prompting follow-up questions to the NSO and parliamentary interventions.

2. What the NSO officially said: refusal and legal framing

The NSO refused to provide confirmatory details when asked specifically whether it protects Peevski, citing legal restrictions on disclosing information linked to operational activities that carry a security classification. The agency stated it is ready to answer questions about its activities in line with established laws, effectively neither confirming nor denying individual assignments while invoking legal confidentiality ^[2]. This response is consistent with intelligence services’ typical practice of refusing to discuss ongoing protective operations, leaving public verification constrained by statutory secrecy.

3. Parliamentary moves: law changes that reshape transport and security rules

Parliament passed changes to laws affecting official transportation that removed NSO-provided drivers for the presidential administration but rejected a proposal to eliminate NSO security for MPs, including Peevski, except in specific-threat cases, with the vote tally 119 for, 64 against, and 13 abstentions ^[3]. The legislative outcome narrowed some NSO responsibilities while explicitly preserving the option for protective measures for deputies when deemed necessary. This indicates that while lawmakers moved to limit certain privileges, they stopped short of a blanket revocation of NSO protection for MPs.

4. Independent reporting vs. absence of documentary proof

Multiple outlets report that Peevski has been observed or reported as receiving heavy protection, yet none of the analyzed pieces provide a declassified NSO order or an official roster confirming his protection status. Articles note observations of armored vehicles and security details connected to Peevski and cite political actors proposing restrictions, but the NSO’s legal refusal to disclose operational information creates a gap between reporting and definitive documentary proof ^{[1] [4]}. This evidentiary gap leaves confirmation dependent on institutional transparency or leaks, neither present in the supplied material.

5. Divergent narratives and potential agendas in coverage

The coverage reflects divergent political agendas: some reports emphasize state overreach or privilege, framing Peevski’s protection as evidence of elite favoritism, while legislative proponents cite public accountability and cost-cutting in transport rules. The NSO’s secrecy serves both to protect operational integrity and to shield sensitive allocations from political scrutiny, a rationale defenders invoke. Opponents argue that secrecy can enable misuse, a criticism that informs calls to restrict NSO services for deputies. These competing framings shape public perceptions in the absence of confirmatory records ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Timeline and most recent developments through October 2025

As of the most recent reporting in October 2025, the debate remained active: October 3 legislative votes changed transport rules while rejecting limits on MPs’ NSO protection, and October 18 pieces reiterated that Peevski has been described as under NSO protection for over a year, with the NSO denying disclosure of operational details ^{[3] [1]}. These chronological markers show legislative restriction coupled with continued reporting of protective measures, indicating the matter evolved through lawmaking without resolving the core transparency question.

7. What is established fact and what remains unresolved

It is an established fact that parliament altered rules about NSO-driven transport for the presidential administration and that lawmakers rejected a proposal to end NSO protection for deputies including Peevski, demonstrating legal and political limits remain for parliamentary oversight ^[3]. It is also factual that journalists reported Peevski as using NSO security for over a year and that the NSO refused to disclose operational details ^{[1] [2]}. What remains unresolved is verifiable documentation from NSO confirming the scope, legal basis, or duration of any specific protection granted to Peevski.

8. How to interpret the evidence moving forward

Given the mixture of journalistic reporting, institutional nondisclosure, and legislative changes, the most defensible conclusion is that claims of NSO protection for Peevski are plausible and repeatedly reported but not officially confirmed in public records available in these sources. The pattern of sightings, political debate, and parliamentary votes establishes a context in which protection could be provided lawfully, but legal secrecy prevents conclusive public proof. Further confirmation would require declassified NSO documentation or an authoritative institutional disclosure beyond the current statements and press reports ^{[1] [2] [3]}.