France’s Capgemini to divest US unit after outcry over ICE tracing contract

Capgemini said it will divest its American subsidiary after scrutiny erupted over a contract with US immigration enforcement. The unit had been engaged to locate individuals for enforcement operations, a role that became politically charged amid public backlash over recent law-enforcement shootings and aggressive deportation activity. French lawmakers and a government minister demanded clarity on the group’s ties to the US agency and called for transparency about the contracts involved. Capgemini’s senior leadership acknowledged lapses in control over the subsidiary and said a sale process will begin immediately to separate the parent from the contentious work. Public records show the engagement began in mid-December and the listed contract value is roughly US$4.8 million, with work scheduled through mid-March; the unit also holds multiple agreements with the same agency. The controversy frames a broader governance problem: large consultancies supplying operational tools or services to enforcement agencies can face swift political and reputational fallout when those services are used in visible, contested operations. Financial exposure from the single contract is limited relative to the group’s size, but the reputational damage could complicate future bids, particularly with European public-sector clients sensitive to human-rights and ethical concerns. For potential buyers of the subsidiary, regulatory and reputational due diligence will be critical; any acquirer inherits the bilateral risks of being tied to domestic enforcement actions in the US. The episode will likely accelerate internal reviews across global consultancies about compliance, client selection and escalation protocols for controversial work. It also highlights how fast-moving media attention and parliamentary pressure in a home market can force corporate strategic decisions about foreign operations. In sum, the divestiture is an attempt to contain political fallout while exposing gaps in subsidiary oversight that other firms will want to address proactively.