Tiny Island 'Palau' Agrees to Take 75 Immigrants from the US for $7.5m in Unusual Labour Arrangement

The United States has reportedly agreed to transfer 75 deported immigrants to Palau in return for £6 million ($7.5 million), with the individuals expected to work and fill labour shortages despite not being charged with crimes.

The claim immediately drew attention because of Palau's small size, remote location, and its pop‑culture association with Survivor, the long‑running US reality show filmed there in the early 2000s.

For many, the money exchanged, people moved, and work expected raised alarm before any official confirmation or policy detail had emerged.

Palau: A Real Survivor Series for Immigrants?

Palau is a Pacific island nation with a population of just over 18,000, known for its marine biodiversity and reliance on tourism, foreign aid, and overseas labour. It has previously hosted US military facilities and Peace Corps volunteers.

Two seasons of Survivor were filmed there in 2005, a show built around isolation, competition and survival under harsh conditions. Online commenters quickly latched onto that imagery, with one remarking, 'Now you really are on Survivor', suggesting that Trump's deportees were being treated like contestants, who won't be winning anything and may live there for the rest of their lives, rather than people with rights.

A large group of commenters focused on the legal and moral logic of the claim. Their core argument was simple: if the migrants were non‑violent and had no criminal records, there was no justification for relocating them to a distant country.

Comments questioned whether the migrants would be paid, free to leave or able to return home. One person asked, 'If they have not been charged with crimes why are they being deported there. Will they have a passport? Or will they never be able to leave'.

Several people compared the arrangement to forced labour, with repeated use of words like 'slavery', 'indentured servitude', and 'work camp'.

Accusations of Human Trafficking and Slave Trading

The most dominant reaction viewed the alleged deal as government‑sanctioned human trafficking. Many commenters said that exchanging money for people who are then expected to work fits classic definitions of exploitation.

Longer comments warned of historical parallels, with one stating: 'This is human trafficking. Countries are buying people from Trump... The future stories of these victims will be horrific'.

Another said bluntly, 'So to check, Trump made a deal where 75 people will be sent to work in Palau, for no payment it sounds, whilst America makes £6 million ($7.5 million). Selling people, where they will then work. That's slavery'.

Others questioned how such a deal could exist in a country that formally abolished slavery, with remarks like, 'Tell me again about how the US abolished slavery'. And, 'Slavery never ended in the US it just changed names'.

Cost, Taxes, and 'Who Benefits?'

Some reactions focused on money. Commenters argued that migrants already contribute economically through taxes and spending, even without access to benefits.

One comment put it plainly: 'Immigrants, both legal and undocumented, make us money via taxes and spending... And Trump wants to PAY other countries to take them?' Others highlighted the scale of potential costs, joking darkly that deporting millions at £80,000 ($100,000) per person would reach trillions.

There was also confusion over who pays whom. Some believed Palau was being paid to house and use the labour, while others thought the US was selling labour outright. 'So — is Palau paying the US the £6 million ($7.5 million) for their labour? Or is the US paying Palau to keep them and use as they will?' one asked.

Trump Supporters Defend the Palau Arrangement

A smaller number of comments pushed back against the outrage, suggesting the arrangement could be better than detention or unsafe deportation. One person described it as 'a sweet deal' compared with harsher alternatives, arguing the migrants might receive jobs, housing, and stability.

However, even this view was met with scepticism, especially from those pointing out that Peace Corps volunteers in Palau earn modest stipends, not six‑figure sums, and that migrants would likely have far fewer protections.

No official policy document, government announcement or legal framework has been cited to confirm the claim. However, the speculation fueled fears about rights. As one comment summed it up, 'You can't just deport people to random countries. That's a human rights violation'.