A job may be remote. Getting hired for it may increasingly require showing up in person.
Employers concerned about impersonation, deepfake video and candidates receiving undisclosed help during interviews are adding face-to-face meetings to their hiring processes. For workforce professionals, this raises a practical question: How can employers verify applicants without creating new barriers for qualified people?
Computerworld reported in August 2025 that Gartner research found 72.4% of recruiting leaders were conducting in-person interviews to combat candidate fraud. The report described Google, Cisco and McKinsey bringing back in-person interviews for some candidates. These findings point to a verification response among employers, rather than evidence that virtual hiring is disappearing.
The concern has continued into 2026. Experian included deepfake job candidates among the five major threats in its annual fraud forecast, warning that fabricated identities and convincing real-time interviews could allow employers to unknowingly give impostors access to sensitive systems.
For employers, the stakes extend beyond whether a candidate can do the work. Hiring can also become an entry point for a security breach.
What the numbers actually show
GetReal Security’s December 2025 research found that 41% of surveyed IT, cybersecurity, risk and fraud leaders said their company had hired and onboarded a fraudulent candidate.
That finding needs context. The survey covered 668 leaders at organizations with at least 1,000 employees. It does not establish that 41% of all employers have hired impostors, nor that every reported incident involved a deepfake. It is a warning from a survey of large organizations, commissioned by a company selling identity-security services.
Separate Gartner research provides another perspective. In a second-quarter 2025 survey of 3,000 job candidates, 6% admitted to interview fraud, defined as posing as someone else or having someone else interview on their behalf.
These are related problems, but they require different responses. Confirming someone’s identity, establishing their skills and setting rules for AI use are distinct tasks. An in-person meeting may help with all three, but it does not automatically resolve them.
The access problem behind the security problem
For people who live far from employment centers, virtual interviews can make a wider job search possible. They can also reduce the transportation, scheduling and caregiving demands of pursuing work.
An added in-person round can restore those demands even when the position itself remains remote.
Consider a rural applicant who completes two video interviews and then learns that the final round requires a trip to a distant office. The immediate question becomes whether the applicant can arrange transportation, miss work, secure care for a family member or pay travel expenses before knowing whether an offer will follow.
Similar pressures can affect people with disabilities or limited mobility. The precise effects will depend on employer policies, reimbursement and available alternatives. The studies cited here do not measure those effects, but the potential barrier deserves attention.
For workforce agencies, an interview withdrawal could therefore signal a problem with the hiring process as well as a change in the applicant’s interest.
A practical role for workforce professionals
Business-services staff can begin by asking employer partners whether their verification requirements have changed. Does a remote position now include an on-site interview? At what stage? Who covers travel? What alternatives are available when attendance presents a substantial obstacle?
Knowing those requirements before making a referral gives staff and applicants time to prepare.
Career services also need to address employers’ rules for AI. Using a tool to practice interview questions is different from secretly receiving answers during an assessment. Candidates should ask what assistance is permitted and be ready to explain the experience, decisions and work represented in their applications. Gartner recommends that employers communicate acceptable AI use and hiring standards clearly.
One possibility worth testing is a locally hosted, employer-approved interview at an American Job Center or partner location. A participating employer might accept an agreed verification process while conducting the interview remotely. Such an arrangement would require clear responsibilities, privacy protections and employer acceptance. It is a potential pilot, rather than an established solution.
State workforce agencies could also look for patterns across local areas: additional interview stages, travel requirements, verification difficulties and applicants withdrawing because they cannot complete a new requirement. Those observations could reveal an access problem before it becomes visible in broader employment data.
Hiring fraud gives employers a legitimate reason to strengthen verification. Workforce professionals can help them do that while keeping qualified applicants in consideration. The question to bring to employer partners is straightforward: How can we establish trust without making access to an interview depend on a person’s ability to travel?