To close out the week, corporate media is finally catching up to a theme we flagged for readers on Wednesday: President Trump’s “Plan B” trade war options.

Wednesday evening: Goldman Responds To Trade Court Block Of Trump Tariffs: Nothingburger, White House Can Sidestep

This follows a move by Biden-appointed activist judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade who attempted to derail Trump’s trade agenda ahead of the 2026 midterms, only to be overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday. 

Thursday afternoon: Appeals Court Reinstates Trump Tariffs

With lawfare intensifying in the courts by leftist activist judges, the Trump administration must now press forward with its ‘America First’ trade strategy on a firmer legal footing.

This takes us to our note late Thursday, citing Deutsche Bank’s policy team focused not on the court circus but instead on Section 899 of the “Big Beautiful Bill” that is currently circulating through the U.S. Senate.

As DB’s George Saravelos explained, this legislation creates the scope for the U.S. administration to transform a trade war into a capital war if it so wishes, a development that is highly relevant in the context of this week’s court circus surrounding Trump’s trade policies.

Ignore The Tariff Court Challenge: Here’s The Obscure “Nuclear Option” Hidden In The Big, Beautiful Bill

Fast forward to Friday morning, UBS analyst Simon Penn told clients about the growing chatter around Section 899 in President Trump’s new tariff framework—already earning the nickname “the revenge tax.”

There’s an increasing amount of conversation about the “899” provision in President Trump’s tariff documentation. It’s been dubbed the “revenge tax”. There’s lots of noise on Friday because it hit the front pages of the Financial Times and Bloomberg.

In very brief, the provision allows the administration to take actions against anything it considers to be a “discriminatory tax”. It leaves the door wide open on the definition and interpretation. Reading through the document and the various opinions that have been given, it looks like its aim is two-fold. It’s a last line of defence to cover anything not caught by the tariffs already in place; it’s another leverage tool to deal with issues such as double taxation and withholding taxes. The provision signals that the administration could step into services, and in particular, financial services. In that case, the administration has designed a powerful negotiating tool and has also built in a technique to deal with any country that attempts to fight back with services-based levies.

UBS analyst George Redman also flagged the increasing traction of Section 899 in corporate media coverage, suggesting that the Trump administration may be preparing to deploy non-tariff measures against serial trade offenders, such as China, to bring Beijing back to the negotiating table. 

Redman noted:

The front page of the Financial Times is focusing on Section 899 of the “big beautiful bill,” which will likely draw attention on Friday. The provision allows the government to raise taxes on foreign investments in the U.S. from companies and investors based in countries it deems to have punitive tax policies. As such, it could include US-based companies with foreign owners and international firms with American branches. Expect a micro focus on companies most exposed to this risk, which are likely to underperform on Friday.

This week’s developments with circus courts show only a temporary blow to Trump’s emergency tariff powers, and the administration appears poised to shift toward a more legal, concrete, and flexible framework—centered around Section 899.