A splintered reputational headache for one of France’s biggest tech names landed in public view this week: Capgemini says it will divest its US subsidiary after revelations that the unit had agreed to help US immigration authorities locate people targeted for removal.
The uproar followed reporting that Capgemini Government Solutions (CGS) signed a December contract with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement for “skip tracing” — a method used to find people whose whereabouts are unknown — worth roughly $4.8 million and tied in one document to large performance bonuses. Videos and protests over recent fatal encounters involving immigration agents in Minneapolis sharpened the political heat.
How a customer relationship became a political crisis
French ministers and MPs demanded answers. Roland Lescure, France’s minister for the economy, told lawmakers he wanted Capgemini to “shed light” on the subsidiary’s work; left‑wing MPs called for sanctions on French firms that cooperate with ICE. Union representatives inside Capgemini urged an immediate halt to collaboration. The story was amplified by watchdogs who published contract details and screenshots of marketing material — some since removed — that described close work with ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations.
Capgemini’s leadership says the parent company had limited visibility into the US arm’s classified and government‑facing contracts. CEO Aiman Ezzat said on LinkedIn the group learned about the deal from public reporting and that the subsidiary operates with a separate board. The firm stated it had been unable “to exercise appropriate control over certain aspects of this subsidiary’s operations” and would initiate a divestiture process immediately.
Yet many critics say that answer is not satisfying. For politicians and civil society groups the question is straightforward: when does a multinational’s separation of governance become an excuse for not knowing where its brand is being used? The debate taps into a larger conversation about corporate responsibility in sensitive government work — a conversation that also brushes against debates over ethics in data and AI, such as the industry efforts embodied by benchmarks like Sony’s FHIBE.
The practical and reputational stakes
Capgemini Government Solutions reportedly holds more than a dozen contracts with ICE, and documents suggest CGS provided services ranging from hotlines to operational support. The immediate contract at issue has been described in company statements as not yet being executed and, according to the parent, subject to internal review and legal protections that limit what the US subsidiary can disclose.
Still, the fallout is already concrete. French lawmakers want full transparency. Employee groups and some investors are asking whether the company’s ethical commitments match its contract portfolio. Outside France, other firms that sell products or services to ICE have faced protests and pressure in recent weeks, underscoring the legal and reputational risks companies encounter when public policy and private contracts collide.
Analysts note this is not just an emotional story: government work can be lucrative, but it carries governance costs that are sometimes underestimated. Michael Posner, an ethics and finance professor, has warned that companies “cannot pretend it’s not their problem” when a business line becomes politically sensitive.
Capgemini’s move to sell the US unit is meant to draw a line under the crisis, but it raises secondary questions: who will buy a firm embedded in classified, law‑enforcement work? And how will the buyer handle contracts that have already sparked controversy? Buyers may face regulatory scrutiny and activist pressure, and the parent company will have to manage the legal and financial steps of any divestment.
Broader ripple effects
The episode has become a touchstone for wider anxieties about how private companies enable public enforcement. Data analytics firms and consultancies — from Palantir to Deloitte and others — have long been subject to scrutiny over similar contracts. The incident also feeds into broader conversations about corporate oversight of subsidiaries, the limits of board separation, and the ethics of selling technology or services that assist enforcement operations. It dovetails with debates about how powerful tools and data can be used by governments, which is why discussions about responsible standards in tech and data remain relevant as companies navigate these choices; for example, the use of large language models and deep search in government contexts has prompted separate debates about scope and transparency, such as those around Gemini’s Deep Research integration.
Capgemini will now try to manage a highly visible divestiture while responding to parliamentary questions at home and pressure abroad. For many observers, the episode will be a test of whether global tech firms can reconcile fast‑moving government business with the ethical and political expectations of citizens and democracies.
This is a developing story: the company has announced the divestment process, but details about timing, potential buyers and the fate of existing contracts remain to be seen.