As the incoming Trump administration firms up its economic and national security agenda for the next four years, Washington is abuzz with talk of tariffs and their potential impact on manufacturers and consumers. That’s why the Consumer Brands Association convened a high-profile event last week, “Tariffs and the Future of Domestic Manufacturing,” featuring a lineup of prominent thought leaders who coalesced around a similar theme: tariffs can play a limited role in addressing issues like national security with adversarial nations, but aren’t an easy solve to larger economic problems like inflation, and may undermine U.S. manufacturers who rely on key ingredients and inputs that can only be sourced overseas. As a result, tariffs should be targeted and made more strategic, ultimately helping to shield consumers from higher grocery prices while still achieving the president’s objectives on issues as varied as immigration, the opioid crisis and countering China.

As America’s largest domestic manufacturing sector, supporting more than 22 million jobs across the country, the CPG industry has a unique perspective on tariff issues. The vast majority of products you find in a grocery or big box store are made right here in America, from American agricultural ingredients from American farms, distributed here in America for American consumers. But walk down any grocery store aisle and you’ll see a huge diversity of products that American consumers have the ability to choose from — and that’s because CPG manufacturers can source ingredients like cocoa, spices, coffee and more from around the world.

Tariffs, of course, raise the cost of imported ingredients and inputs — so for CPGs that need access to these products that aren’t available in the U.S. or are only available in especially limited quantities, it’s basic math. Tariffs raise the cost of production, in turn necessitating higher consumer prices, while at the same time potentially leading to retaliatory tariffs and other trade barriers around the world that limit the ability of U.S. CPG companies to be competitive abroad.

Not all tariffs are equal though, and the incoming administration is right to acknowledge that tariffs are part of a broader trade policymaking toolkit. Our own data shows an overwhelming majority of President-elect Trump’s voters say they trust him on the economy and his vision for the future. But if you probe deeper, those same supporters acknowledge that there is a difference between, say targeted tariffs on certain Chinese industries posing national security concerns, and tariffs on ingredients that cannot be grown in the U.S.

Because these voters elected Trump on addressing kitchen table issues like the rising cost of groceries, they rightfully support refining tariff approaches and taking a more strategic point of view on trade policymaking to help President Trump achieve his broader geopolitical objectives.

“It makes a lot of sense to use tariffs selectively if there’s a real national security reason,” said Joseph Gagnon, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The key, then, is orienting trade policy around “north star” objectives — understanding that trade policy today isn’t just about the economy, it’s inherently being connected to other policy aims. Understanding those true objectives — countering China, reducing illegal immigration, combatting the opioid crisis — is critical to having a more productive trade policy conversation. Likewise, it’s important to understand that while this tariff and trade policymaking debate plays out, industries may not be so far apart from the Trump administration as commentators might be inclined to portray. At the end of the day, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that America’s largest manufacturing sector cares a lot about continuing to “make it in America.” The Trump administration and CPG industry share a common goal of strengthening U.S. manufacturing and reducing inflation.

As Everett Eissenstat, Partner, Public Policy Practice Group at Squire Patton Boggs, put it: Questions around tariffs should include finding “an end state that’s going to put us better off than we are today.”

“Not everything is created the same. Sectors matter, and you’re not going to get the same outcome with the same tools across the board,” said Eissenstat.

Ultimately, it will be critical for decision makers to have the tools and insights to separate harmful tariffs from those that help the incoming administration achieve other objectives. Consumer Brands is committed to building awareness and thoughtful dialogue around these issues, helping policymakers on both sides of the aisle understand what’s at stake for domestic manufacturing in the years ahead.