French tech giant Capgemini is dumping its American government subsidiary following fierce criticism over a massive contract with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The move comes just weeks after the company extended its work with NHS Scotland, putting fresh pressure on public-sector tech deals across the UK.
The Paris-based firm announced on 1 February 2026 that it will sell Capgemini Government Solutions (CGS), the unit that signed a contract worth up to $465 million (£365 million) to provide “skip tracing” services to ICE. These services help locate people targeted for deportation.
The decision follows direct intervention from the French government and growing anger among UK health campaigners who questioned why an NHS supplier was profiting from US immigration enforcement.
What Sparked the Fury
News of the ICE deal broke in late January 2026, triggering immediate backlash in France.
Roland Lescure, France’s finance minister, publicly demanded Capgemini “shed light in an extremely transparent manner” on the contract and reconsider its involvement.
Capgemini chief executive Aiman Ezzat admitted on LinkedIn that senior leadership only learned of the contract’s full scope through media reports, despite it being signed in December 2025.
The timing could hardly have been worse for the company.
Just one month earlier, in December 2025, Capgemini secured a £533,375 contract extension with NHS Scotland to continue modernising health board IT systems. The total value of its Scottish work now exceeds £1.5 million.
Campaigners quickly drew parallels with Palantir, the US data analytics firm that has faced sustained protests over its £330 million Federated Data Platform contract with NHS England and its long-standing work with ICE since 2011.
Why Capgemini Says It Had No Choice
In its official statement, Capgemini blamed strict US federal contracting rules that prevented the parent company from exercising proper oversight over CGS.
The firm said national security restrictions meant it could not “exercise appropriate control over certain aspects of the operations” to ensure they aligned with group values.
CGS represents just 0.4 percent of Capgemini’s global revenue and less than 2 percent of its US earnings, making the subsidiary relatively easy to offload.
The company stressed the sale process has already begun and will be completed as quickly as possible.
NHS Scotland Stays Silent So Far
Scottish health boards and the Scottish Government have not commented publicly on whether Capgemini’s ICE links affect ongoing contracts.
The latest NHS Scotland deal covers critical digital transformation work across multiple health boards, including system upgrades that staff rely on daily.
One Scottish healthcare worker, speaking anonymously to Digital Health News, said: “We’re already stretched thin. The last thing we need is more uncertainty about who controls our patient data systems.”
The Bigger Picture for Public Tech Contracts
The Capgemini case exposes growing tensions around global tech firms winning lucrative public health contracts while maintaining government work in controversial areas.
Activists argue that companies cannot separate their “good” public health work from profitable contracts with immigration enforcement or military clients.
Zack Polanski, Green Party deputy leader, who recently confronted Palantir directly, welcomed Capgemini’s move but warned it does not go far enough.
He told this publication: “Selling off a subsidiary is damage limitation. Real accountability would mean ending all involvement in systems that separate families and put lives at risk.”
Palantir continues to defend its NHS work, claiming the Federated Data Platform has already enabled 80,000 additional operations and cut discharge delays by 15 percent.
The company insists its past and present work with ICE and the Israeli military has no bearing on its UK healthcare contracts.
Yet campaigners point out that both Capgemini and Palantir operate through separate US entities specifically designed to bid for federal contracts that parent companies might find politically toxic.
This structure allows firms to profit from controversial work while maintaining plausible deniability at group level.
Capgemini’s swift decision to sell CGS entirely, rather than simply cancel the ICE contract, suggests the political pressure became unsustainable.
For NHS leaders, the episode raises difficult questions about supply chain ethics in an increasingly globalised tech market.
Patients and staff deserve to know that the companies handling sensitive health data do not profit from human rights controversies elsewhere.
Capgemini’s divestment may calm immediate concerns in Scotland, but the wider debate about who should power Britain’s health service in the digital age is only just beginning.
What do you think? Should NHS bodies cut ties with any company linked to ICE, or is this just business? Drop your thoughts below and use #NHSTechEthics if you’re sharing on social media.
