Overview:
President Surangel Whipps Jr. has signed an agreement to accept up to 75 U.S. deportees — despite earlier objections from Palau’s highest legislative and traditional bodies. Weeks later, neither the Senate nor the Council of Chiefs has publicly responded, leaving unresolved legal and sovereignty concerns hanging over the deal.
By: L.N. Reklai
KOROR, Palau (AP) — Weeks after formally opposing a U.S. proposal to transfer deportees to Palau, neither the Olbiil Era Kelulau nor the Council of Chiefs has publicly responded to President Surangel Whipps Jr.’s decision to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States agreeing to accept up to 75 third-country nationals ordered removed under U.S. immigration law.
The silence follows months of warnings from both bodies that Palau lacks the legal authority, capacity and infrastructure to take on such a role. In letters sent in July and October 2025, the Senate urged the president not to proceed, writing, “We strongly advise against proceeding further on this matter,” while cautioning that Palau “cannot afford to overpromise or commit to something we cannot fulfill.”
The Council of Chiefs similarly rejected the proposal, citing Palau’s vulnerability as a small island nation and describing the plan as incompatible with “our precarious and fragile situation as a tiny island nation seeking to exist in this complex world.”
Despite those objections, Whipps signed the MOU with the United States, creating a one-year, renewable framework for the transfer of selected third-country nationals with final orders of removal. The agreement becomes operative upon signature and allows either country to withdraw with 30 days’ notice.
The MOU emphasizes that it is nonbinding and does not create new legal obligations under domestic or international law. Whipps has said the agreement imposes no legal duty on Palau, noting that all actions remain subject to Palauan law and existing treaty commitments.
Under the framework, the United States may propose transfers on a case-by-case basis, while Palau retains full discretion to accept or reject any individual. Transfers are capped so that no more than 75 previously transferred individuals would be present in Palau at any one time.
The agreement limits eligibility to single adults or family units with final removal orders and excludes unaccompanied minors. The United States says it does not intend to propose individuals known to have non-immigration criminal convictions or those subject to Interpol notices, and transfers would be limited to nationals of countries with which Palau has diplomatic relations.
Palau would admit accepted individuals under existing immigration laws, such as temporary visas or nonresident work permits, and facilitate lawful employment with the individuals’ consent. The government would retain authority to revoke status or deport individuals who violate conditions of stay, consistent with Palauan law and international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement and the Convention against Torture.
The United States has pledged to share available biographical, medical and criminal information and to conduct health screenings prior to transfer. It also says transfers would occur under humane conditions and that the two governments may discuss possible U.S. financial assistance to offset costs, though no funding commitments or amounts are specified in the agreement.
Legal analysts and critics note that while the MOU is framed as nonbinding, its implementation could expose Palau to legal challenges. Key terms — including how deportees would meet Palau’s foreign labor needs, how long they could remain, what pathways exist for longer-term status, and who would bear the costs of health care and housing — remain undefined.
Questions also persist about public safety vetting, due process protections, and how Palau would ensure compliance with non-refoulement if individuals later lose legal status and face removal.
Some legal interpretations argue the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to accept third-country nationals without legislative approval, particularly where population, residency and public services are affected. Others point to the absence of a clear immigration category for asylum transferees under Palau law and the lack of environmental and infrastructure impact assessments.
Under U.S. law, critics say transfers could face challenges if Palau is deemed unable to provide adequate protection or lawful status, potentially triggering litigation under the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Administrative Procedure Act.
While the MOU preserves Palau’s discretion on paper, its operational rollout — not the text itself — may determine the country’s legal exposure. For now, lawmakers and traditional leaders who once voiced strong opposition have yet to publicly weigh in on the agreement’s signing, leaving key questions unanswered as Palau moves toward implementation.