In a move that underscores the growing intersection of corporate ethics, international politics, and immigration policy, French IT powerhouse Capgemini has announced the immediate sale of its U.S.-based subsidiary, Capgemini Government Solutions (CGS). The decision follows intense scrutiny over the company’s contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), amid escalating protests against ICE’s enforcement tactics under the second Trump administration.
The controversy has reverberated far beyond the United States, fueled by reports of fatal shootings involving federal immigration officers and by renewed outrage over America’s hardline deportation drive.
“This contract is not aligned with Capgemini’s business-technology focus,”
said CEO Aiman Ezzat in a LinkedIn statement.
Founded in 1967, Capgemini has grown into a global leader in consulting, technology services, and digital transformation, employing more than 340,000 people worldwide and carrying a market valuation exceeding €22 billion ($24 billion). Yet its U.S. government arm, largely out of the public eye, had amassed a significant portfolio of federal contracts, including 13 agreements with ICE alone, worth millions of dollars.
A Contract That Sparked a Firestorm
The flashpoint came in December 2025, when Capgemini Government Solutions secured a contract worth up to $4.8 million to provide “skip tracing” services for ICE. The work involved locating individuals targeted for enforcement and removal operations. The contract included performance-based bonuses that could scale as high as $365 million if success benchmarks were met.
The deal, uncovered by the French NGO Observatoire des Multinationales, triggered immediate backlash across France and Europe.
“European companies cannot hide behind technicalities when human rights are at stake,”
said Hadrien Clouet, a left-wing French MP who called for sanctions.
Public records show CGS has worked with ICE since at least 2005. Early contracts focused on reengineering immigration enforcement processes. Over time, they expanded into IT modernization, program support, call center operations, and technological enhancements to ICE’s Alternatives to Detention program, which monitors migrants through ankle bracelets, mobile applications, and biometric systems.
By 2026, CGS had received more than $34.6 million in awards from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, with ICE accounting for approximately 65 percent of that total. One of the largest past contracts, running from 2018 to 2023, totaled $50.9 million and covered detention management and ground transportation services designed to replace short-haul deportation flights.
Trump’s Return and a Changed Political Climate
The timing proved decisive. Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 reignited promises of mass deportations, triggering a sharp escalation in ICE activity across major U.S. cities.
Minneapolis emerged as a focal point. There, intensified operations led to fatal shootings involving federal immigration agents, including the deaths of 37-year-old Alex Pretti, shot by Border Patrol officers, and Renee Nicole Good, killed by an ICE officer. These incidents ignited nationwide protests and drew international condemnation.
Images of ICE officers clashing with demonstrators at busy urban intersections circulated widely, amplifying scrutiny of the agency’s methods and of the companies supporting its operations.
The December 2025 skip-tracing contract, scheduled to run through March 2026, became the tipping point. Capgemini leadership stated that the parent company became aware of the deal only through public disclosures, citing U.S. legal constraints tied to classified federal work as limiting oversight.
An extraordinary board meeting followed. French lawmakers demanded explanations. Trade unions and activist groups intensified pressure.
On February 1, 2026, Capgemini announced the sale of CGS.
Political Shockwaves in France and the United States
In France, where Capgemini is regarded as a national champion listed on the Paris stock exchange, the backlash reflected broader European unease with U.S. immigration policy under Trump.
Finance Minister Roland Lescure publicly demanded transparency regarding the company’s U.S. activities. Parliamentary questions were filed, and NGO-led campaigns gained traction on social media platforms, particularly X, formerly Twitter.
“The irony is impossible to ignore,”
wrote one widely shared post.
“A European firm helping power U.S. deportations.”
Across the Atlantic, Minneapolis became emblematic of grassroots resistance. Protesters linked ICE operations to earlier movements such as Black Lives Matter, framing immigration enforcement as part of a broader pattern of state violence.
Labor scholars and activists circulated lists of corporate ICE collaborators, including Dell, UPS, and AT&T, arguing that targeting vendors raises the political and operational cost of deportations.
Financial Impact: Small Numbers, Big Signals
From a purely financial standpoint, the divestiture appears marginal. CGS accounted for just 0.4 percent of Capgemini’s projected 2025 global revenue and less than 2 percent of its U.S. sales. The company reaffirmed its full-year financial targets and described the unit as non-core.
Shares dipped modestly in early trading after the announcement but quickly stabilized. Analysts point to Capgemini’s strength in AI, cloud services, and consulting as insulation against long-term damage.
The reputational impact, however, may prove more significant.
In an investment environment increasingly shaped by ESG criteria, association with controversial enforcement agencies carries growing risk. Clients, employees, and institutional investors are scrutinizing not just profits, but principles.
For the U.S. federal IT contracting market, valued at over $100 billion annually, Capgemini’s exit may signal a shift. Foreign firms, in particular, may reassess their exposure to politically sensitive government work.
A Bellwether for Global Tech Ethics
Capgemini’s retreat is more than a corporate reshuffle. It is a case study in how global tech firms navigate the ethical boundaries of state power in an era of heightened political polarization.
As the Trump administration expands deportation operations and public enforcement actions, scrutiny of private-sector collaborators is intensifying. The episode echoes earlier controversies involving technology companies accused of enabling surveillance or data-sharing practices that conflicted with human rights norms.
Some European lawmakers are already calling for stricter oversight of EU companies working with U.S. enforcement agencies.
“This is how you deal with a tyrannical government,”
wrote one user on X, summarizing the activist mood.
Whether Capgemini’s decision sparks a broader wave of divestitures remains uncertain. What is clear is that in a deeply interconnected world, borders no longer contain backlash. Corporate actions in one country can ignite political consequences in another, and even the largest global players are discovering that public pressure can redraw the limits of acceptable business.