Companies Are Ditching Business With ICE

As national protests against immigration enforcement intensify — especially after recent shootings by ICE agents in Minneapolis — pressure on corporations with contracts or ties to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is rising sharply. In response to public backlash from consumers, employees, activists, and even shareholders, some companies are now ending or reconsidering their business relationships with ICE. �
Houston Chronicle +1
Capgemini Divests U.S. Subsidiary Over ICE Contract
One of the most high‑profile examples of this shift comes from European technology and consulting firm Capgemini.
Capgemini announced it will divest its U.S. subsidiary, Capgemini Government Solutions (CGS), which had a multimillion‑dollar contract providing services to ICE — including controversial “skip tracing” tools used to locate individuals targeted for enforcement. �
Gizmodo +1
The company’s leadership acknowledged the backlash and reputational risk linked to the contract, noting that the unit accounted for only a small fraction of total revenue — but that public and governmental scrutiny made the association untenable. �
AP News
Capgemini’s shares even rose after the announcement, signaling that some investors view the move as a proactive response to reputational concerns. �
Reuters
This decision is notable not just because Capgemini is a major global firm, but because it reflects international scrutiny on U.S. immigration enforcement policies and corporate participation.
U.S. Companies and ICE Contracts Under Fire
While Capgemini’s move is one of the clearest examples of divestment, a broader debate is unfolding around U.S. companies with active or historical ties to ICE:
Avelo Airlines Ends Deportation Flights
Houston‑based Avelo Airlines confirmed that it will stop operating deportation flights for ICE out of Arizona, a decision that sparked mixed reactions from local media and activists. �
Houston Chronicle
Public Pressure on National Brands
Activists have increasingly called out major corporations for their perceived neutrality or silence over ICE policies, including targeting companies like Target during protests demanding they cut ties or take public stances against enforcement operations. �
FOX 13 Seattle
In Minneapolis and other cities, major employers such as General Mills, Target, and Caribou Coffee have faced pressure as local communities struggle with the impacts of ICE activity. �
Star Tribune
Shareholders and Internal Critics
Criticism isn’t limited to external protests. Shareholders of firms like Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) have asked leadership to divest from federal contracts tied to ICE, arguing that such business deals conflict with corporate values. �
The Nome Nugget
Companies Still Contracting With ICE — And Why It Matters
Despite these moves, many corporations still maintain ICE contracts or work indirectly with the agency through government service arrangements. For example:
Large contractors such as Palantir Technologies have ongoing data and operational contracts with ICE, playing a core role in building enforcement technology platforms. �
Wikipedia
Many Fortune 500 firms provide goods, services, or technology support to ICE field offices — from delivery services to IT systems — although some of these contracts are relatively small and set to expire in the coming months. �
aol.com
Advocates argue that exposing and challenging these relationships can put further pressure on both corporations and policymakers in Washington, particularly in light of renewed debates over immigration policy and the agency’s expanding role under the Trump administration.
Why Companies Are Cutting Ties or Facing Pressure
There are several key reasons why businesses are reconsidering their relationships with ICE:
1. Brand and Reputation Risk
Public backlash over corporate ties to controversial enforcement actions — especially those that have resulted in deaths or heavy‑handed operations — threatens consumer loyalty and brand value. This is particularly true for companies with strong global consumer bases.
2. Employee and Shareholder Activism
Workers and investors increasingly expect companies to act in line with ethical values. When a business is linked, even indirectly, to enforcement activities that harm communities, internal pressure can grow for leadership to take action — as seen with BSNC and other shareholder challenges. �
The Nome Nugget
3. Political and Regulatory Scrutiny
International and governmental criticism, including from French officials in Capgemini’s case, elevates the reputational stakes of continuing controversial contracts. �
AP News
4. Public Campaigns and Boycotts
Across U.S. cities, campaigns such as “ICE Out” are calling for companies to publicly denounce or discontinue support for ICE, leading to protests targeting major brands. �
FOX 13 Seattle
Not Just Divestment — A Broader Corporate Reckoning
The trend is part of a broader conversation about corporate responsibility, ethics, and the intersection of business and public policy:
Grassroots movements and advocacy groups are pushing for more transparency and accountability from corporations that hold government contracts, particularly those involving enforcement or surveillance technologies. �
The Nation
Some activists believe that reducing corporate support for enforcement agencies could weaken those agencies’ capacity to carry out controversial operations, essentially forcing policy change through economic means. �
Reddit
However, not all companies are willing or able to end contracts — especially if they involve long‑term government procurement or critical technology infrastructure. This underscores the complexity of disentangling private sector interests from federal enforcement systems.
What Comes Next
As protests and public debates over immigration enforcement continue, it’s likely that:
More companies will face scrutiny over their ties to ICE and related agencies.
Consumer and employee campaigns may grow, especially on social media and grassroots organizing platforms.
Investors may increasingly weigh ethical considerations when evaluating corporate governance and risk exposure.
The broader trend reflects a moment where corporate values, public policy, and civic activism intersect — with companies weighing not just profitability but social and ethical impact.