On September 5, 2025, a flurry of online posts by American right-wing activist Laura Loomer ignited a fresh debate about outsourcing, language, and stereotypes in the United States. Loomer, known for her staunch support of former President Donald Trump, took to X (formerly Twitter) to claim that Trump is now considering blocking U.S. IT companies from outsourcing their work to Indian tech firms. The statement, while unconfirmed by the Trump campaign or administration, has already stirred significant discussion across political and business circles.
According to News18, Loomer declared in a post, "President Trump is now considering blocking US IT companies from outsourcing their work to Indian companies. In other words, you don’t need to press 2 for English anymore." She punctuated her statement with a play on Trump’s famous campaign slogan, writing, “Make Call Centers American Again!” Her comments didn’t stop there. The following day, Loomer doubled down, posting, "I am so excited for President Trump to end the days of pressing 2 for English to speak with someone who doesn’t speak English. Very nice."
Loomer’s remarks, laden with stereotypes about Indian call centers and English proficiency, quickly drew both support and criticism. Her posts reflect a broader conservative push to bring jobs back to the United States and reduce reliance on foreign labor, particularly in the technology and service sectors. As reported by News18, right-wing commentator Jack Poso echoed Loomer’s sentiments, suggesting, “Countries must pay for the privilege of providing services remotely to the US, the same way as goods. Apply across industries, levelled as necessary per country.”
Despite the fervor, there’s currently no official confirmation from Trump or his campaign about any concrete plans to restrict IT outsourcing to India. The idea, however, is not new. Outsourcing—especially to India—has long been a political flashpoint in the U.S., with critics arguing it costs American jobs and supporters contending it helps companies stay competitive and efficient. The renewed attention comes amid ongoing trade tensions between the U.S. and India, adding another layer of complexity to an already fraught topic.
But Loomer’s comments didn’t just target outsourcing as an economic issue—they also took aim at the language skills of Indian call center workers. Her assertion that Americans shouldn’t have to "press 2 for English" to speak with "someone who doesn’t speak English" plays into persistent stereotypes about Indian-accented English and the perceived quality of overseas customer support. Yet, as Hindustan Times pointed out, the reality is far more nuanced—and the numbers back it up.
Pew Research data, cited by both Hindustan Times and News18, reveals that around 84% of Indians above the age of five are proficient in English. This figure includes 28% who interact only in English at home and another 56% who speak another language at home but speak English very well. In other words, the vast majority of Indians working in call centers are more than capable of communicating effectively in English—a point often overlooked in political rhetoric.
The stereotype of the unintelligible overseas call center agent has long been a source of frustration (and sometimes humor) for American consumers, but it’s not borne out by the data. Multinational companies invest heavily in language training for their Indian staff, and English remains the lingua franca of business and technology in India. In fact, India is the world’s second-largest English-speaking country, trailing only the United States itself.
Still, the political winds in America are shifting. Calls to “bring jobs home” have grown louder in recent years, fueled by economic uncertainty, nationalist sentiment, and concerns about supply chain security. The COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing global tensions have only intensified scrutiny of overseas labor arrangements. For many on the right, outsourcing has become a symbol of lost American opportunity—and a convenient rallying cry in an election season.
Loomer’s posts tap into that sentiment, but they also highlight the dangers of conflating economic policy with cultural stereotypes. Her suggestion that blocking outsourcing would eliminate the need to “press 2 for English” reduces a complex, globalized industry to a punchline. Critics argue that such rhetoric not only misrepresents the skills of Indian workers but also risks fueling xenophobia at a time when international cooperation is more important than ever.
On the other side of the debate, some business leaders and economists warn that restricting outsourcing could have unintended consequences. U.S. companies have long relied on Indian IT firms for their expertise, scalability, and cost efficiency. Blocking access to this talent pool could drive up costs, slow innovation, and hurt American competitiveness—especially in tech-heavy sectors like software development, customer support, and data analytics.
Outsourcing is also a two-way street. Indian IT giants like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, and Wipro employ thousands of U.S. workers and invest billions in the American economy. The relationship is symbiotic, with both countries benefiting from the exchange of skills, ideas, and capital. Any move to restrict outsourcing would have ripple effects on both sides of the Pacific.
For now, Trump’s actual position on the issue remains unclear. The former president has a history of tough talk on trade and outsourcing, but his administration’s record was mixed. While some restrictions were put in place, especially around federal contracts and immigration, the broader outsourcing industry continued to thrive during his tenure. Whether he would take more drastic action in a potential second term is an open question.
Meanwhile, Loomer’s comments have reignited a familiar debate about what it means to be “American” in a globalized world. As the U.S. grapples with its economic future, the question of who gets to answer the phone—or write the code—remains as contentious as ever. The challenge for policymakers is to balance the demands of domestic workers with the realities of a connected, competitive world.
For Indian workers and companies, the latest controversy is a reminder of their pivotal role in the global economy—and the persistent stereotypes they still face. As Pew Research and Hindustan Times have shown, the narrative of the “non-English-speaking” Indian call center agent simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Instead, it’s a testament to the enduring power of myth over fact in the world of politics and public opinion.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the intersection of outsourcing, language, and politics is as complex—and as heated—as ever. The coming months will reveal whether Loomer’s claims gain traction or fade into the background noise of an already polarized conversation. For now, Americans may still find themselves pressing 2—but the real question is, what are they really choosing?
