WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — Indian American-owned businesses have emerged as major players in a federal small business program that lawmakers say may have drifted from its original mission, according to testimony before a U.S. Senate committee. At a hearing this week, investigative journalist Luke Rosiak told senators that the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program now awards a large share of federal contracts to firms owned by immigrants from India, even though the program began as a tool to help Black Americans overcome historic discrimination.

The Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee held a hearing to examine whether the 8(a) program continues to serve socially and economically disadvantaged businesses as Congress intended. Congress created the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program in 1978. Lawmakers designed it to help disadvantaged small businesses gain access to federal contracts. The program allows agencies to set aside work for eligible firms. It also permits some contracts without competitive bidding.

Supporters have long argued that the program helps correct decades of exclusion from government contracting. Many minority-owned and women-owned firms say it gives them a rare foothold in a crowded federal marketplace. Rosiak told the committee that the program’s focus has shifted over time. He said South Asian business owners now dominate a large share of 8(a) contracts, especially in information technology.

“By one measure, South Asians, from the country of India, gobble up a lion’s share of 8(a) contracts, while Black Americans get only 15 percent,” Rosiak told senators.

He described Indian Americans as the wealthiest demographic group in the United States. He argued that many do not face the same barriers that the program aimed to address.

“Indians have never been underrepresented in IT,” Rosiak said. “They’re overrepresented.”

Federal IT work makes up a major portion of government procurement. Rosiak said that reality gives firms in the sector a clear advantage under the 8(a) rules. Rosiak cited OCT Consulting LLC as one example. He told the committee that the firm’s owner, Atul Kathuria, received 19 federal contracts worth about $43 million without competitive bidding.

“Normally, it would be illegal to give a contract to a company with no competition,” Rosiak said. He added that the awards followed current law because the firm qualified as an Indian American-owned small business under the 8(a) program.

He argued that such cases raise serious concerns about fairness and oversight.

“Minority ownership is just to win a contract, not to fix societal disparities at any meaningful scale,” Rosiak said.

Committee Chair Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, said the panel wants to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs. She stressed the need to protect taxpayer dollars. Democratic Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts defended the program’s core mission. He warned against using selective examples to justify sweeping changes.

Markey said the 8(a) program has helped many disadvantaged entrepreneurs enter federal contracting. He argued that Congress should strengthen oversight without dismantling minority-focused efforts.

Other witnesses shared concerns about enforcement gaps. Officials from the Government Accountability Office and the Project on Government Oversight pointed to weak fraud controls and outdated data systems. They urged better monitoring rather than the elimination of the program.

Rosiak said recent court rulings have increased pressure on the SBA. Supreme Court decisions that limit the use of race in federal programs have pushed agencies to rely more on subjective measures of social disadvantage. He argued that these changes make the system easier to exploit. He also noted that ongoing lawsuits could force the SBA to rewrite the 8(a) rules entirely.

The debate highlights a broader question facing Congress. Lawmakers must decide how to balance equal access to federal contracts with safeguards that ensure programs reach truly disadvantaged businesses. As scrutiny grows, the future of the SBA 8(a) program may hinge on whether policymakers can reform it without losing its original purpose.