The increasing repudiation of business engagements with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has reached beyond American borders, with multinational companies opting to sever or reconsider their contracts with the agency amid growing public dissent and political scrutiny.
Notably, Capgemini, an influential French consulting and technology group, announced its intention to divest a U.S. subsidiary involved in contractual work supporting ICE. This decision followed critical exposure of a mid-December $4.8 million contract awarded to this division by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which entailed supplying ICE with skip tracing services. Skip tracing comprises locating individuals who are difficult to track using online and public registry resources, such as voter registration information.
Capgemini's CEO, Aiman Ezzat, addressed the decision in a LinkedIn post, emphasizing that the scope of the work fell outside the company's usual business parameters as a technology and consulting firm. The company disclosed that restrictions tied to government contracts hindered its capacity to supervise the U.S. unit effectively to ensure adherence to Capgemini’s corporate values and objectives.
The U.S. subsidiary contributed modestly to Capgemini's revenues, representing just 0.4% of global revenue projections for 2025 and less than 2% of its income in the United States. This financial insignificance contrasts with the symbolic and reputational significance of disentangling from ICE-affiliated contracts amid the political and social controversies surrounding the agency’s enforcement practices.
The backdrop to Capgemini's divestment includes investigative findings by the Paris-based corporate monitoring entity, Multinationals Observatory. This organization publicized detailed aspects of the contract and highlighted Capgemini’s involvement with ICE, pointing to a company webpage archived on their site which noted efforts to aid ICE in minimizing both the time and financial costs associated with deporting removable undocumented immigrants.
Further challenging the status quo, Canadian firms have also come under scrutiny for their indirect or direct associations with ICE. Emily Lowan, Green Party leader in British Columbia, has publicly called for a boycott of businesses owned by Canadian billionaire Jim Pattison unless his companies sever ties with the agency. Jim Pattison Developments, a subdivision of the Jim Pattison Group, responded to this pressure by canceling plans to sell a warehouse in Ashland, Virginia, to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This facility was intended to support ICE operations, as indicated in a recent government communication, though the company provided no additional comments when approached.
Social media enterprise Hootsuite has also been a focal point for activism and public protests due to its contracts with ICE’s public affairs office. Demonstrators gathered outside its Vancouver headquarters, urging the company to terminate its working relationship with the agency. Hootsuite's CEO, Irina Novoselsky, clarified that their engagement does not involve tracking or surveillance functionalities. She acknowledged the complexity of the issue and recognized the strong opinions it engenders, stressing the distress and fear experienced by communities subjected to recent enforcement actions.
Beyond international corporations, several American businesses too are choosing to distance themselves from engagements with ICE. In Oklahoma City, property owners withdrew from discussions regarding the potential sale or lease of real estate to the Department of Homeland Security, a move publicly endorsed by the city’s mayor, David Holt. In Minnesota, notable retailers Target and Best Buy issued calls for a reduction of tensions around immigration enforcement policies.
The growth of protests across multiple major U.S. cities, including marches staged over recent weekends, signal widespread public opposition fueled by tragic incidents involving ICE agents, such as the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. These developments contribute to an atmosphere where corporations are increasingly sensitive to association with ICE, weighing ethical concerns and reputational risks alongside legal and financial considerations.
Accordingly, the unraveling of contracts and related business operations linking ICE to various multinational and domestic entities underscores a significant shift in corporate responsibility and public sentiment. While the financial impact on some companies remains marginal, the broader implications for stakeholder trust and market perception are substantial.