<p>In recent years, there has been growing enthusiasm for leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the effectiveness of nudges. However, this enthusiasm has been tempered by significant ethical concerns, one of which relates to the political opacity of the psychological mechanisms underlying AI-driven nudges. Political transparency is widely considered essential for enabling meaningful public scrutiny and the political opacity often associated with AI-driven nudges appears to undermine citizens’ ability to critically assess them. This concern introduces a potential ethical challenge that sets AI-driven nudges apart from traditional ones, which are typically assumed to be transparent about the psychological mechanisms they are based upon. This paper seeks to critically assess this concern and argue that it is ultimately unwarranted. First, I will illustrate that the empirical basis for this worry is flawed, as traditional nudges can also exhibit political opacity in relation to their psychological mechanisms. Second, I will argue that citizens are fully capable of engaging in meaningful public scrutiny even without complete knowledge of the psychological mechanisms underlying nudges. I contend that denying public scrutiny on the grounds of incomplete knowledge is paternalistic, infantilizing, and, paradoxically, undermines the very principles that justify the practice of public scrutiny itself.</p>