By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following international outcry and scrutiny over deaths during ICE operations, French IT giant Capgemini announced the sale of its subsidiary working for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The company faced pressure after an American subsidiary signed a deal with ICE to identify and track foreigners. This decision came after an extraordinary board meeting and amid calls for transparency. The company stated legal restrictions prevented adequate control over the subsidiary’s operations, despite the contract representing a small portion of its global revenue.
Read the original article here
French IT giant Capgemini is making headlines, and not for the reasons it likely wants. The company, a massive player in the global tech world with a workforce exceeding 300,000, is selling off its US subsidiary, Capgemini Government Solutions, and the whole saga seems to be rooted in a controversy surrounding its dealings with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It’s a move that’s raising eyebrows and sparking conversations about ethics, government contracts, and the intricacies of operating in the US market.
The central issue, it seems, is the nature of the work the US subsidiary was doing. Because a significant portion of US government contracts require handling classified information, the subsidiary was established to meet the necessary security clearances. This, of course, meant the establishment of “Chinese walls,” – strict protocols to ensure that sensitive data is shielded from anyone without the proper authorization. The problem? The parent company, Capgemini, allegedly didn’t have clearance to access this information, leading to the interesting, and possibly problematic, situation of the parent company’s management operating on a “trust” model, hoping their subsidiary was doing everything by the book.
Now, you might wonder why this is such a big deal. Well, according to the available information, the subsidiary in question represents a relatively small percentage of Capgemini’s global revenue – roughly 0.4% in the 2025 estimate, and under 2% of its US revenue. The fact that they’re selling it off despite the seemingly minor financial impact strongly suggests that reputational damage is the primary driver. The controversy, and the negative association with ICE, likely threatened to overshadow other sectors and projects, something Capgemini was clearly keen to avoid. This isn’t just about financial numbers; it’s about image, and the potential for a bad reputation to erode the company’s overall value and future opportunities.
The complexities of working with the US government, especially when classified information is involved, are evident here. It’s a delicate balancing act, requiring companies to navigate intricate regulations, security protocols, and ethical considerations. Capgemini’s apparent retreat from this sector highlights the risks involved, particularly for global companies that may not always have a firm grip on the details of their subsidiaries’ operations. The potential for reputational damage, as this situation underscores, can outweigh the financial gains.
It’s interesting to note that several people who have had firsthand experience with Capgemini have chimed in on the discussion. Some found it surprising that the company is French, as it has a strong Indian presence when it comes to hiring a large number of entry-level employees. This sheds some light on the company’s organizational structure, which, as with many large consulting firms, relies heavily on contractors and a tiered workforce. It appears that while some employees are directly employed by Capgemini, others are sourced through subcontractors.
Another key aspect that emerges is the strategic value that Capgemini places on being a preferred vendor for these clients. It can essentially be seen as a gatekeeper, influencing which contractors get hired and thereby dictating the margins. This suggests a business model focused on maximizing profits and a degree of control over the talent pool.
The specifics of how this whole thing works are also somewhat detailed, given the nature of US government contracts involving classified information. It requires meeting specific security requirements, which will vary based on the level of clearance needed. Companies will need to go through the proper procedures to bid on these contracts, and of course, they need to have the right clearances.
Ultimately, the decision by Capgemini to sell its US government solutions subsidiary speaks volumes. It’s a clear indication that the risks associated with the contract, and the resulting reputational fallout, outweighed the financial benefits. It’s also a stark reminder of the ethical and practical challenges global companies face when navigating complex markets like the United States, particularly when intertwined with sensitive government contracts.