The anticipated emergency meeting between Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. and the 36th Legislature, originally scheduled for Wednesday, has been postponed. The meeting was expected to address the governor’s proposal to impose a minimum 25 percent tariff on goods imported from the British Virgin Islands and introduce new entry and exit fees for nonresidents traveling between the two territories.
The delay follows the release of a legal opinion from the Legislature’s Assistant Legal Counsel, Sharline L. Rogers, Tuesday, which concluded that the governor lacks the authority to impose such tariffs, even with legislative approval. The opinion, requested by Sen. Kenneth Gittens, reinforced that only Congress — or the president, under delegated authority — has the power to enact tariffs. While the Legislature has the authority to impose customs duties of up to 6 percent on imported goods, the proposed 25 percent tariff would exceed that limit.
The timing of the legal opinion’s release, just ahead of the scheduled meeting, shifted the focus of the conversation and raised questions about the governor’s authority. However, Government House maintains that the intent was always to engage in discussions before any decisions were made. Speaking to the Source Wednesday, Communications Director Richard Motta clarified that Bryan had intended to initiate a discussion first, consulting with local stakeholders before deciding on any next steps. Senate President Milton Potter added that the governor’s intent was to meet with the Legislature’s leadership so that both branches could be aligned when exploring or proposing alternatives.
The idea of requesting federal action — whether through the White House or other channels – was always a possibility but not the immediate priority. According to Motta, the first step was to engage local policymakers to fully understand the potential impact of any trade policy changes before bringing the matter to federal officials. The governor, he said, wanted a comprehensive exploration of what was possible within existing laws and what options might be available to the territory.
The push for tariffs comes amid broader concerns about trade imbalances and revenue loss for the Virgin Islands. Bryan has argued that the territory has suffered from economic leakage, with Virgin Islanders frequently purchasing goods and services in the BVI without reciprocal benefits for local businesses. The proposed tariffs and travel fees were framed as a means of leveling the playing field and ensuring that the Virgin Islands maximizes its revenue potential from cross-border commerce and travel, according to recent statements.
However, the economic and diplomatic implications of such a move could be more complex. The BVI remains a trading partner for the USVI, and any drastic policy shift could disrupt the economic synergy between the two territories, officials have said. Concerns have also been raised about potential ripple effects on tourism, a shared economic pillar, as well as the potential for retaliatory measures by the BVI government.
Adding to the debate is the fact that the tariffs were previously on the books but are only now being enforced. The shift coincides with the British Virgin Islands’ transition of its customs and maritime operations to a semiautonomous model, necessitating new revenue streams. The Virgin Islands Shipping Registry, for example, recently became the Virgin Islands Shipping and Maritime Authority under new legislation, granting it greater financial and operational independence. Similarly, the push to enforce existing tariffs aligns with the government’s broader efforts to generate revenue and bolster economic resilience.
Acting BVI Premier Kye M. Rymer has also initiated conversations with USVI officials, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the long-standing familial and economic ties between the two jurisdictions. “Constructive dialogue has commenced with the Bryan Administration regarding this important issue for all stakeholders concerned,” Rymer said in a statement recently made on Facebook.
While no new date has been set for the postponed meeting, officials stress that discussions are ongoing and that the administration remains committed to addressing economic concerns — whether through trade policy adjustments, federal intervention, or other mechanisms yet to be explored.
