On Hold: Can New Legislation Really Reshape America’s Call Centers?

Now it's Heard 

The industry has a voice. Now it’s Heard.

Heard is our new BPO Bullhorn series that puts the mic in the hands of leaders, analysts, and practitioners across the sector. Each edition brings a fresh voice, a sharper angle, and no bull. Grounded perspectives that move the conversation forward.

We begin with Aishwarya Barjatya from Everest Group on the latest shifts in U.S. legislation. A take that challenges assumptions and sharpens how the industry sees what comes next.

Loud and Clear: Aishwarya Barjatya, Everest Group

What’s all the noise about?

Two pieces of legislation in the US are stirring debate in the CX world: the Keep Call Centers in America Act of 2025 (KCCA) and the Halting International Relocation of Employment (HIRE) Act. Both are bills, not laws, but they share a protectionist intent. The KCCA would require firms to notify the Department of Labor 120 days before offshoring, publish a public “offshoring list,” more like a “wall of shame” list of offenders, cut them off from federal funding, and force upfront disclosure if agents or AI are handling a call, with the right to transfer to a U.S.-based representative. The HIRE Act, meanwhile, would impose a 25% tax on payments for services provided by foreign workers and consumed in the U.S., explicitly designed to deter outsourcing.

The potential upside

For BPOs, this legislation could trigger a wave of reshoring. Domestic delivery, particularly in tier-2 and tier-3 cities or rural regions, may become more attractive as firms seek compliance-friendly, cost-moderated alternatives.

Behind the policy debate lies a real story of communities long left behind. Over the past decade, the U.S. has lost nearly 500,000 call center jobs, many in smaller towns where these facilities once served as economic anchors. When jobs move offshore or are automated, rural America feels the pain first, leaving behind shuttered buildings, lost tax revenues, and fewer opportunities for workers without college degrees.

Impact sourcing offers a chance to reverse that tide. PeopleShores shows what this can look like: in towns like Clarksdale, Mississippi, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and DeKalb, Georgia, the company has trained local residents - many of them first-time knowledge workers - for roles in customer support and tech & AI services. For these individuals, a call center role isn’t just a paycheck; it’s a chance to stay in their community, build skills, and secure a pathway to upward mobility.

If bills such as KCCA and the HIRE Act tilt the economics toward onshore delivery, rural hubs could become viable alternatives, delivering social good alongside quality customer service. For enterprises, rural sourcing also offers a chance to build consumer trust by linking service delivery to community impact.

The flipside

Yet these benefits only go so far. Rural impact sourcing, while positive, cannot match the scale or economics of offshore delivery. The Philippines alone employs 1.8 million BPO workers, while India, Latin America, and Africa have built thriving industries around serving U.S. (and other global) clients. By comparison, U.S. rural hubs will remain a fraction of offshore capacity, and at far higher cost. The cost gap is still stark - reshoring means higher labor and operating costs, even in rural America, compared to offshore savings of 50-70%. That gap matters - higher delivery costs inevitably cascade, either shrinking US enterprise margins or raising customer prices, often at the expense of service quality.

And the consequences don’t stop at home. For millions of workers overseas, call center roles represent impact sourcing on a global scale - lifting families out of poverty, funding education, and enabling upward mobility. BPO accounts for 9% of the Philippines’ GDP - curtailing that opportunity in the name of U.S. protectionism risks destabilizing economies abroad while offering only limited benefits in the U.S.

Final verdict: policy or posturing?

At best, the KCCA and HIRE Act are signals of political mood rather than practical policy. Both are still just bills, and history suggests they will likely face an uphill battle against cost realities, strong corporate lobbying, and enforcement challenges. Enterprises should model scenarios and monitor developments, but treat this as political posturing more than an imminent industry shift. In the end, while these bills aim to support U.S. jobs, their practical impact may be limited, and could introduce new complexities for both US firms and global workforce and service ecosystems. For now, the prudent approach is to take a wait-and-watch stance, recognizing that the conversation is likely to generate more attention than immediate outcomes.

Follow Heard

Get the full picture every week: Subscribe to our email newsletter for weekly signal tracking across the industry.

Be part of the conversation: Follow BPO Bullhorn on LinkedIn for debates, polls, and industry insights.

Don’t miss the next conversation that’s shaking up BPO and CX. Tap Subscribe on our LinkedIn newsletter to get future editions of Heard straight to your inbox.