Trump’s DOJ gains oversight of OpenAI’s green-card employee sponsorships
The US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has secured a settlement with OpenAI and its former subsidiary Statsig, placing three years of federal oversight on the AI lab's hiring practices for green-card sponsorship roles. The DOJ alleged the companies discouraged US citizens from applying for jobs that were instead earmarked for immigrant employees the firms were sponsoring for permanent residency, breaching requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Neither company admitted wrongdoing, but the case highlights growing scrutiny of how tech firms handle the PERM labour certification process under the Trump administration.
Under the settlement, OpenAI and Statsig will pay $3.2 million in total, comprising a $1.2 million fine and a further $2 million set aside as potential restitution for US citizens found to have been disadvantaged. The DOJ said the alleged tactics, affecting fewer than 10 roles, included failing to post jobs publicly, advertising on the radio late at night and demanding paper rather than online applications. The companies must now have their PERM hiring policies approved by the department and file semi-annual reports, while the DOJ noted its investigation began in August 2025, before OpenAI's September 2025 acquisition of Statsig, and that similar settlements were reached with Facebook and Apple under the Biden administration.
- OpenAI and Statsig face three years of DOJ oversight on hiring
- Settlement requires $3.2m payment over green-card sponsorship practices
- Firms accused of discouraging US citizens from applying for sponsored roles
New here? Start with this
The DOJ's Civil Rights Division has settled with OpenAI and its former subsidiary Statsig over claims that the companies steered certain roles towards workers they were sponsoring for a green card, rather than opening those jobs up to US citizens. Federal law requires firms to genuinely advertise such positions before backing a foreign worker's application for permanent residency, and it's this requirement, known as PERM labour certification, that regulators say was not properly followed.
Neither company has admitted any wrongdoing, and the DOJ says fewer than ten roles were involved. The case matters because it puts a spotlight on how AI and tech companies handle hiring when sponsoring skilled foreign staff, an issue the Trump administration has been actively pursuing, following earlier settlements of a similar kind with Facebook and Apple under the previous administration.
As part of the deal, OpenAI and Statsig will pay a combined $3.2 million and submit to three years of Justice Department oversight of their hiring practices for these roles, including having policies approved in advance and reporting back regularly.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of the DOJ's action argue that federal law requires companies sponsoring foreign workers for green cards to genuinely test the domestic labour market first, and that this exists precisely to stop firms quietly reserving jobs for candidates they have already chosen. If postings were buried, advertised only on late-night radio, or required paper applications where none were otherwise used, that looks like a deliberate effort to keep qualified citizens from applying rather than an honest oversight. They would note that this is not a partisan invention, since comparable settlements were reached with Facebook and Apple under the previous administration, suggesting consistent enforcement of worker protections regardless of which party holds office, and that oversight and reporting requirements are a proportionate way to verify future compliance without shutting down legitimate sponsorship.
The case against
Sceptics of the settlement's framing would point out that neither OpenAI nor Statsig admitted wrongdoing, and that companies frequently settle such disputes simply to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation rather than because the allegations are accurate. They might argue that the case concerns fewer than ten roles out of a much larger workforce, making it a minor administrative matter that is being used to send a broader political signal about immigration enforcement. Defenders of the companies could also note that PERM sponsorship is a lawful, long-standing route for hiring skilled workers the US needs, particularly in fast-moving fields like AI, and that recruitment rules are notoriously ambiguous in practice; imposing three years of federal oversight and semi-annual reporting risks discouraging legitimate sponsorship and adding compliance burdens disproportionate to the scale of the alleged conduct.