Hon Myron V. Walwyn- A disappointment on international affairs
I typically do not publicly express my disagreements with members of the House of Assembly, but on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, during the 'other business' segment, I felt alarmed, disappointed, and concerned by the fear mongering of my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Myron V. Walwyn, regarding a letter written to President Donald J. Trump by Governor Albert A. Bryan Jr about maritime fees.
Firstly, it is important to note that when Premier and Minister for Regional Affairs Dr Natalio D. Wheatley expertly negotiated this matter, Mr Walwyn claimed that the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) were "eating our lunch." The records now show that Dr Wheatley represented the Virgin Islands (VI) exceptionally well, securing the best possible outcome for us in this deal. Mr Walwyn was mistaken once again.
I, therefore, urge the Opposition Leader not to manipulate information merely to oppose the Government or to fulfil a perceived obligation to criticise.
The issue of potential US intervention regarding the recently increased maritime fees, which reportedly have impacted the USVI, raises questions about whether the United States, specifically President Donald J. Trump, could intervene or impose penalties on the VI due to these increased fees that might have caused financial harm to the USVI.
The short answer, in my view, is that neither the United States nor Mr Trump can directly influence the Virgin Islands (VI) regarding these matters. Here are the reasons: The VI is a British Overseas Territory, not a US Territory like the US Virgin Islands (USVI) or a sovereign state such as Venezuela or Panama. Consequently, the United States has no direct authority to dictate VI’s fiscal or regulatory policies, including maritime licensing fees. Any fee increases by the VI are a sovereign decision made under the authority delegated by the UK.
Even if those increases have economic impacts on the USVI, that alone does not provide the US with legal grounds to penalise the VI. A US President or Treasury Secretary could only act indirectly—through diplomatic pressure or by utilising measures from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, but only if there are findings of sanctions violations, money laundering, or national security risks, none of which are established solely by fee increases.
Moreover, any concerns must be raised with the UK government, since the UK retains ultimate responsibility for the VI. Economic harm to the USVI alone is not a legal trigger for US sanctions or penalties, contrary to what Mr Walwyn suggested. US sanctions are based on national security, foreign policy, or law enforcement grounds, not on competitive or regional economic disadvantages.
While the US (or a US President) can apply political or diplomatic pressure on other countries, there is no legal mechanism for Mr Trump or the US to punish the VI simply for increasing fees, even if those increases negatively affect the USVI economy.
No crime has been alleged, and this is ultimately a governance issue between the UK and the VI, not a matter of US enforcement.
Use of the United States Dollar
Historically, the VI used British currency, including pounds and shillings, and later the British West Indies dollar. However, in 1959, the VI formally adopted the US dollar as its legal tender with the approval of the UK, which is the administering power. This approval came from the UK, not the United States. The UK supported the VI’s choice of currency as part of its internal governance, considering our proximity to the USVI, our main trading partner, which made trading more convenient back in those days.
For those unaware of this history, the US did not grant permission, issue a license, or retain any right to revoke the dollar's use by the VI. Once adopted, the US dollar is used by choice and custom, not at the discretion of any US President. Additionally, there are about twelve independent countries that use the US dollar as their sole legal tender, including Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, and Zimbabwe (co-legal), to name a few. Thus, while the VI previously used pounds, and the UK approved the switch, the United States has no legal mechanism to “take away” the dollar now, especially not as a retaliatory measure against maritime fees or competition with the USVI. Therefore, our use of the US dollar does not create leverage for the US today.
Currency choice is a constitutional matter between the UK and the VI, not a tool for US enforcement. Moreover, the significance of the US dollar has changed over time, especially as we move towards digital currency. We no longer face the same trade facilitation concerns we did in 1959. In fact, some have suggested that we might be better off with the pound if that option were reopened. It is something we might even consider pursuing!
That aside, there are repercussions that the USVI can impose on the VI. Both sides have negotiated many conveniences as part of their friendship, including the ability to move back and forth between each other’s territories without the need for a visa. Therefore, it is in both parties' interests to resolve issues amicably, rather than through bullying, manipulation, or by political leaders misleading the public. Such tactics are not sustainable!
Julian Willock holds a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree from the University of Buffalo in Political Science, with a concentration in International Relations.
Ms Ayana S. Hull, a prominent Attorney in the VI, also contributed to the research on this article.
2_01.jpg)
Follow Us On
16 Responses to “Hon Myron V. Walwyn- A disappointment on international affairs”
Anyway, enough with my rant. Let’s get down to brass tax about a different point of view on a point of view of J. Willet. “ Even if those increases have economic impacts on the USVI, that alone does not provide the US with legal grounds to penalise the VI. A US President or Treasury Secretary could only act indirectly—through diplomatic pressure or by utilising measures from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, but only if there are findings of sanctions violations, money laundering, or national security risks, none of which are established solely by fee increases.” I have a different point of view on DJT attitude and behavior. He does give a rat’s @$$ about constitution, law, etc. He is unmoored from facts, truths, law, etc. He has been immune by SCOTUS to do all things, Congress had abdicated its responsibilities in the three branches of government, etc. He is a fan of Might is Right. He is not a fan of small S. Hole countries. He is a transactional guy. For example, he is focused on countries with resources, ie, Venezuela, Greenland, Canada, etc. He is about deal making, retribution, etc. As he notes, the only thing that he thinks cannot stop or limit him is his morality.