For years, ITServe Alliance – made up of more than 2,200 outsourcing and labor-brokerage companies tied overwhelmingly to India’s IT service pipeline – has portrayed itself as a defender of “local employment” while quietly waging an aggressive legal and lobbying campaign to dismantle safeguards designed to protect American workers from displacement and wage undercutting.

Through lawsuits, negotiated settlements and direct pressure on federal agencies, ITServe successfully forced rollbacks of enforcement tools that once limited third-party staffing abuse, curtailed misuse of OPT (Optional Practical Training, a controversial temporary employment program for foreign students) and required proof of legitimate employer-employee relationships. Those victories were framed as administrative corrections, but newly compiled evidence suggests the organization and its member companies used those wins not to comply with the law, but to evade it.

Specifically, ITServe openly boasts that it helped reverse OPT restrictions allowing foreign students to work at third-party client sites, rescinded the Neufeld Memo governing employer-employee relationships, eliminated itinerary and client-letter requirements and blocked wage rule increases that would have raised pay floors for H-1B workers. These measures were explicitly designed to prevent labor trafficking, benching, shell employment and displacement of U.S. workers. ITServe did not merely challenge these protections, it celebrated their removal as “legislative achievements.”

But internal PAC updates, member communications and social-media recruiting records now reveal something far more troubling.

Executives and recruiters tied to ITServe member firms openly advertise OPT, CPT, H4 and H-1B-only hiring pipelines, promote bench sales operations, coordinate offshore recruiting teams and market visa-restricted roles that explicitly exclude Americans. In multiple instances, recruiters publicly admit sourcing OPT and H-1B workers for third-party placements, the very conduct ITServe claimed was lawful only because it succeeded in stripping away enforcement tools.

These practices raise serious questions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the U.S. law that prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status, requires bona fide employer-employee relationships, bars misrepresentation in visa filings and forbids the use of visa programs to undercut U.S. wages. The INA does not allow employers to reserve jobs for foreign visa holders, operate perpetual bench systems, or use shell entities to funnel workers into client sites without genuine control. Evidence now suggests ITServe’s litigation victories may have enabled, not prevented, systematic violations.

Even more striking is ITServe’s own admission that it coordinated directly with U.S. consulates in India to challenge denials based on missing client letters and proof-of-work requirements. Internal PAC communications show ITServe actively instructing members on how to push back against consular scrutiny and FDNS (Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate) site visits, while threatening litigation to force faster approvals. This is not passive advocacy; it is operational interference with enforcement.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may have lost to ITServe on narrow administrative grounds in past litigation, but that does not immunize the organization or its members from accountability when evidence shows the same protections they dismantled are now being flagrantly violated. Administrative defeat does not excuse fraud. Policy rollback does not legalize misrepresentation. And litigation success does not override statutory law.

Federal agencies now face a defining choice. The record before them is no longer hypothetical. It includes documented recruiting posts, internal PAC guidance, visa-restricted job advertisements, offshore staffing structures, wage suppression models and member company data showing extreme H-1B dependency combined with massive federal PPP payouts. The same organization that claimed to defend fairness now appears to have engineered a system that excludes Americans by design.

USCIS, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, have the authority and now the evidence to act. The issue is no longer whether ITServe successfully sued to weaken enforcement. The issue is whether the federal government will enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act when presented with proof that those weakened safeguards were exploited to commit the very abuses they were meant to prevent.

SEE THE EVIDENCE ARCHIVE: To access a comprehensive and ever-expanding archive of additional evidence supporting this exclusive WND investigative report, visit “Foreign Influence and Lobbying Network Hub.”