Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr. and his administration have claimed they followed proper protocols in approving an agreement with the U.S. to house up to 75 deportees. However, this assertion is under scrutiny from both the Senate and the Council of Chiefs, raising significant concerns about the decision-making process involved.
Whipps emphasized the establishment of a working group that consisted of members from Rubekul Belau, Mechesil Belau, state leaders, and Congress, tasked with evaluating possible deportees and creating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This group, chaired by Minister Victor and co-chaired by Minister Olegeriil, set criteria stipulating that deportees must be medically fit, of working age, possess valid passports, and hold clean criminal records.
Minister Victor outlined a timeline indicating the U.S. request was received in June 2025, with initial discussions and a draft MOU exchanged by July. Despite this, concerns from the OEK Congress and the Council of Chiefs emerged, questioning Palau’s ability to accommodate deportees and the legal ramifications of such an agreement. This led to a rejection of the proposal by legislative leaders. Victor, however, interpreted these responses as hesitations about the terms rather than a complete dismissal of the U.S. request.
Amidst these objections, the working group continued its efforts from October to December, culminating in the signing of the MOU on December 24. The situation intensified when Senate President Hokkons Baules asserted that members of Congress who attended a meeting with U.S. Deputy Secretary Landau were not authorized to participate in the working group discussions. Lawmakers voiced concerns over not receiving formal updates regarding the working group’s discussions prior to the agreement’s finalization.
Additionally, the complexities surrounding the deportation agreement coincide with President Whipps announcing that Palau has received $7.5 million in grant funding from the U.S. This includes $500,000 allocated to Palau Community College for housing arrangements for deportees, as well as $2 million dedicated to addressing illegal drug issues, a new hospital partnership, and $6 million aimed at improving the national pension plan.
This situation highlights the ongoing friction between Palau’s executive and legislative branches, with the executive believing it has complied with necessary procedures while legislative leaders seek greater clarity regarding the process’s legitimacy and transparency. Nonetheless, this scenario presents an opportunity for dialogue and collaboration between these branches, which may ultimately serve to prioritize the interests of Palau’s citizens in a constructive manner.