Go to a grocery store in the United States and you’ll find aisles lined with jars of St Dalfour strawberry spread and Bonne Maman raspberry preserves — just two examples among the over $200 million (£154 million) worth of jam products that Europe exports to America annually.

However, when searching for American-made jelly in Europe, you might end up disappointed.

Each year, the US exports less than $300,000 worth of jam to the bloc.

It’s an imbalance that US company JM Smucker, one of the biggest sellers of such products in America, blames on a 24%-plus import tax its fruit spreads face in the EU.

“The negligible amount of U.S. exports to the European Union can be completely attributed to the high EU tariffs,” the firm stated in a missive sent to the White House earlier this month. They requested that the Trump administration tackle this matter as they prepare to impose “reciprocal” tariffs on America’s primary trade allies.

The firm stated, “Imposing reciprocal U.S. tariffs on European jams and jellies would help even out the competition.” They pointed out that the current maximum tariff rate for jam imported into the United States is only 4.5%.

Worldwide, Trump’s initiative to impose tariffs on key trade allies – most of whom have average duty rates comparable to those in the United States – has sparked frustration and confusion. Economists have also issued cautions regarding possible price hikes and other potential economic repercussions.

Several U.S. companies have voiced similar worries, yet President Trump’s demands for tariffs are also redirecting long-standing grievances felt by numerous enterprises regarding international competitors and the regulations they encounter overseas.

One of the numerous letters sent to the White House was from Smucker’s, aiming to sway the upcoming round of tariffs scheduled for release on April 2nd.

Apple growers highlighted the significant difference in import tariffs imposed on their produce in nations like India (50%), Thailand (40%), and Brazil (10%). They also mentioned that stringent health regulations in places such as Australia unjustly hinder their export efforts.

Streaming businesses highlighted digital service taxes imposed in Canada and Turkey, stating these measures unfairly target and discriminate against U.S. firms.

The oil and natural gas industry lobbyists criticized rules in Mexico mandating collaboration with the government-run petroleum firm along with various other measures.

The White House highlighted disparities such as Brazil’s ethanol tariff of 18% versus America’s 2.5%. Additionally, they pointed out European auto duties at 10% contrasted with America’s 2.5%, along with Indian motorcycle taxes which were once set at 100%, contrasting sharply with the U.S.’s rate of 2.4%.

Trump has suggested that his plan for reciprocal tariffs will help remedy such grievances, pumping up his announcement as “Liberation Day”.

However, companies addressing their own concerns have shown reluctance towards the president’s approach of imposing tariffs first and considering questions later, as this tactic could provoke retaliation and escalate into a broader trade conflict.

As April 2nd approaches, significant confusion still surrounds the objectives and extent of the White House’s strategies, particularly with Trump initiating a barrage of additional tariffs.

This week, he stated, ‘We’ll aim to be pleasant,’ even as he unveiled potentially harsh tariffs on imported vehicles and auto components. He believes people will find themselves agreeably surprised,

India has indicated that it will reduce its tariffs on motorcycles, which seems to be a move suggesting that Trump’s tariffs are intended as a tactic to secure bargaining power during trade negotiations.

However, experts cautioned that those who believe Trump intends to leverage his reciprocal tariffs for negotiations in other areas might be let down, since the president has also suggested he would be content with merely retaliating.

“Sometimes it’s about seeking vengeance and balancing the scales, whereas on other occasions it involves reducing tariffs, and then there are days when the focus is on relocating manufacturing back to the United States,” explained William Reinsch, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.

They have all been utilized at various points; there isn’t a single strand here that you can depend on.

There is a discrepancy between the straightforward approach of using tariffs and the specific concerns that companies wish the White House to address. This gap has resulted in a complex situation where businesses propose tariffs for their benefit but simultaneously try to dodge the consequences of broad-ranging duties like those proposed by Trump.

For instance, NorthStar BlueScope Steel, a steel producer that employs 700 workers in the U.S., processes recycled metal into steel and has asked President Trump to extend tariffs on steel and aluminum to components as well.

Meanwhile, it sought an exception for the raw materials it requires, like scrap metal.

Similarly, the Consumer Brands Association, which represents major food companies such as JM Smucker, cautioned against “extensive and comprehensive tariffs” that could potentially increase costs for its members when importing ingredients like cocoa, which are not produced domestically in the United States.

Tom Madrecki, the group’s vice president of supply chain resilience, stated at a recent Farmers for Free Trade event focused on tariffs, “I’m not particularly keen on the idea that the present administration might respond by imposing a tariff.”

It involves maintaining a delicate equilibrium where, yes, I support adopting an America First trade strategy and taking measures to address unjust trading practices overseas… yet perhaps not exactly in that manner.

Wilbur Ross, who was Trump’s commerce secretary during his initial term, believed that concerns from businesses would subside once Trump’s strategies became evident. He referred to April 2nd as a significant development, labeling it “a big step.”

However, he pointed out that the president believed there was minimal risk in employing tariffs, seeing them as either a means to generate additional income or as a method to decrease imports and promote increased industrial production.

“He’s extremely dedicated,” he stated. “Individuals ought to have anticipated this outcome since he has been discussing it for countless years.”

Traditionally known as the pro-trade party, Republicans have continued to back Trump’s approach despite tariffs being cited as a reason for the recent downturn in the stock market and the decline observed in recent assessments of both business and consumer confidence.

During a recent discussion about trade issues at a hearing, Representative Jodey Arrington from Texas, a Republican, admitted that there could be some initial difficulties. However, he insisted that President Trump’s emphasis on this matter would ultimately lead to new chances for his constituents.

“To me, it appears unpatriotic not to support American manufacturers, producers, and workers in achieving a fair competitive environment,” he stated.

“We’re just trying to reset these relationships so that we all follow the same rules,” he said. “That way, everybody benefits.”

• What exactly are tariffs, and what is the reason behind Trump’s use of them?
• Is Trump correct when he claims that the U.S. encounters unjust trade practices?