Tangle - President Trump orders H-1B visa applicants to pay a $100,000 fee.

Episode Date: September 23, 2025

On Friday, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation adding new requirements for H-1B visas, which grant temporary work authorization to noncitizens in specialty occupations. The new rules compel new applicants to pay $100,000 to apply for the visa (with exceptions granted by the secretary of Homeland Security) and directs the secretary of State to ensure compliance with the new regulations. The $100,000 fee will begin to apply at the start of the next H-1B lottery cycle in March 2026.A new opportunity to engage with us.Do you want to have a say in what we cover, ask questions to be answered in the newsletter, and get the inside scoop on Tangle events? This week, we’re running a trial partnership with Subtext, a platform that will allow us to text readers directly with instant analysis, surveys, announcements, peeks behind the scenes and more. If you’re interested in being part of our trial, text TANGLE to [phone] or click here to sign up (it’s free).Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the H-1B system? Let us know.Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Ari Weitzman and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you're a Chicago business looking to give back locally, Gardeneers is your kind of nonprofit. We work in under-resourced schools across the South and West Sides, helping students grow fresh food and learn about health, sustainability, and equity. Your corporate sponsorship supports hands-on education, youth mentorship, and the transformation of school gardens into vibrant green spaces. Learn more about sponsorship opportunities at Gardeneers.org. Let's Grow Something Together. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning. Good afternoon and good evening. And welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum.

some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about H-1B fees that the Trump administration is implementing. This is really important, a pretty, I would say, not like earth-shattering, but what's a more level way to put it? I mean, it's going to change the immigration, legal immigration system in a significant way.

And I think while ripple effects across the U.S. So we're going to break down exactly what's going on and then share some views from the left and the right. And then, as always, my take. Before we jump in, though, I want to give you a quick heads up on something new that we're testing out for the next few weeks. We love engaging our listeners and readers. And this week, we're running a trial partnership with a platform called subtext. This is a platform that will allow us to text our readers and listeners directly with surveys, announcements and more. If you're interested in being part of our trial, you can text us at Tangle

at 850-338-9163. That's 850-338-9163. And that'll sign you up on our text messaging list. And we're just going to play with this platform a little bit. We're not 100% sure if we're going to go all in and do this for the long term. But we think it could be a really fun way to engage people more directly. And if it works out, we'll keep it up for a bit. So sign up if you're interested. You can also find a link in the episode description, and we'll be in touch. All right, I'm going to send it over to John for today's main topic, and I'll be back for my take.

Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, Disney announced that Jimmy Kimmel's late-night comedy show will be returned to the air on Tuesday following a six-day suspension for comments Kimmel made about the assassination of Charlie Kirk during his comedy monologue. Separately, Sinclair, which owns the largest number of ABC affiliate stations, said it would preempt Kimmel's show with other news programming. Number two, President Donald Trump announced that the Food and Drug Administration believes it has found an association between pregnant women's use of acetaminophen, the active

ingredient in the pain reliever Tylenol, and autism. The FDA will begin notifying physicians. The FDA will begin notifying physicians of this potential risk of acetymenophon during pregnancy. Number three, President Trump reportedly plans to approve a proposed deal that will make the U.S. business of the social media app, TikTok, majority owned by U.S. investors. User data from the app will be stored in a cloud server in the U.S. and overseen by a board of directors with national security and cybersecurity credentials. Number four, France recognized Palestinian statehood at a United Nations meeting one day after the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Portugal did the same. And Dora, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta,

and Monaco also announced or confirmed their recognition of a Palestinian state. And number five, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether the president can fire independent agency leaders at will, stemming from President Trump's attempt to dismiss Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The court ruled Trump can proceed with firing slaughter while it considers her challenge. administration is adding $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications. Now, those visas are used to attract highly skilled workers to the United States. On Friday, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation adding new requirements for H-1B visas,

which grant temporary work authorization to non-citizens in specialty occupations. The new rules compel new applicants to pay $100,000. $100,000 to apply for the visa, with exceptions granted by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and directs the Secretary of State to ensure compliance with the new regulations. The $100,000 fee will begin to apply at the start of the next H-1B lottery cycle in March 26. For context, H-1B visa holders typically work in STEM fields, STEM standing for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and the program has existing provisions meant to protect

U.S. workers from being adversely affected. Visa applicants must have the equivalent education of a bachelor's degree, and visa holders can stay in the country for up to six years. Prior to the start of President Trump's second term, the program generated disagreement between Trump allies and White House advisor Elon Musk over the merits of hiring foreign workers for U.S. STEM jobs and the American tech industry's reliance on the H-1B program. We covered the debate over H-1B visas in January, and you can check that out with a link in today's episode description. Initially, White House officials gave conflicting descriptions of the changes to the H-1B program. On Friday, Commerce Secretary Howard Ludnik said visa holders, or their company, would have to pay the $100,000 fee annually, but added that some details were still being considered. The next day, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt posted on X, this is not an annual fee.

It's a one-time fee that applies only to the petition, adding, those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will not be charged. $100,000 to re-enter. The White House said the foreign policy change was intended to encourage companies to hire U.S. workers, accusing some businesses of spamming the system and driving down wages under existing H-1B rules. In his proclamation, President Trump also claimed that abuses under the current system made it more difficult to attract and retain the highest-skilled subset of temporary workers. However, many industry and business groups expressed concern that the new rule would create

confusion and make hiring more difficult. Shortly after Trump signed the proclamation, several major U.S. companies advised their employees with H-1B visas who are currently outside the United States to return to the country before the restriction took effect on Sunday. Others suggested that H-1B employees exercise caution traveling outside the U.S. Today, we'll break down the debate over the new H-1B visa rules with views from the right and the left, as well as what industry experts are saying, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break.

In too many Chicago neighborhoods, access to fresh food is a luxury, not a given. Gardineers is working to change that by supporting school garden programs that empower students to grow their own produce, learn about nutrition, and fight back again. against systemic food injustice. These aren't just gardens. They're pathways to health, education, and equity. Learn how you can help at gardeners.org. Let's grow food justice in Chicago together. All right.

First up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is mixed on the new policy, with some saying it will be detrimental to the tech industry. Others argue Trump is taking necessary action to address abuses of the H-1B system. In no opinion, Noah Smith said the Trump administration goes after Asian immigrants. The tech industry is very international. Often the people who bring key ideas to a startup are at first only able to come to work in America via H-1B. A lot of universities initially depend on H-1B visas to bring over faculty and researchers.

In general, critical knowledge workers will eventually get employment-based green cards, but this takes a lot of time and effort. Usually they have to come on an H-1B first and apply for green cards while working in America, Smith wrote. As a result, a lot of very successful and famous Americans needed the H-1B to get their start in the country. If the $100,000 fee holds up in court, it'll still place a significant burden on H-1B employers and workers,

but not an insurmountable one. And it looks like foreign students may be exempted from the fee, which would bias the visa program toward people who study at U.S. universities and away from people who are hired directly from overseas, Smith said. That would actually be good, since the former are especially desirable. But in any case, the order, in whatever form, is still a significant attack on skilled immigration. In Bloomberg, Patricia Lopez suggested the $100,000 H-1B visa is a gamble that could protect U.S. jobs. President Donald Trump is taking yet another gamble on immigration,

betting that he can force companies to compete for skilled American engineers and tech workers rather than hire foreign workers through the popular H-1B visa program. Employers won't like it, but reform of the program is long overdue, Lopez wrote. Trump is correct. The H-1Bs had been deliberately exploited, and that systemic abuses have created large-scale replacement of skilled American labor with lower-paid workers. American STEM graduates led to believe that their degrees would result in plentiful opportunities and well-paid jobs are instead scrounging for work. Loopholes abound. Middlemen flood the program with applications.

and scoop up as many visas as possible, then contract out those workers to a handful of large companies. In 2023, there were 446,000 applications in a program limited to 85,000 private sector slots, Lopez said. Trump's policy carries risk. The H-1B overhaul dramatically escalates costs at a time when companies are already struggling to find the skilled labor they need. If companies can't find competitive labor sources, expansion plans may slow, resulting in fewer jobs overall. Frustrated companies could move such jobs overseas. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is also mixed on the policy, but many praise Trump for prioritizing U.S. workers.

Others say the fee will disproportionately hurt small businesses. In the American thinker, Brian C. June Def said that the new H-1B fee put America first. The H-1B program was initially created to help U.S. companies fill rare, high-skilled roles when American expertise was unavailable. However, in practice, it has become a pathway for cheap foreign labor. According to the Economic Policy Institute, in 2022, the top 30 H-1B employers brought in 34,000 new visa workers even as they laid off at least 85,000 Americans June Def Road. The new fee is meant to give employers pause. Is the same skill so scarce that it justifies paying $100,000 annually to Washington, D.C., in addition to

salary and benefits. Allowing tens of thousands of foreign nationals, many from strategic competitors like China, to work in sensitive sectors such as semiconductors, defense, and telecommunications, poses serious national security risks. Intellectual theft, espionage, and divided loyalties are real threats, not just theories. They have been repeatedly documented by U.S. intelligence agencies, June DeF. said. By tightening the H. B pipeline, Trump's executive action reduces this exposure. America cannot afford to have its cutting-edge military and technology sectors mainly staffed by non-citizens.

In the American Spectator, David Herbert called the new rule an exercise in crony capitalism. The president is once again showing that he is not afraid to shake things up when it comes to protecting domestic workers. If we look beyond the surface level details, we can plainly see that this is a policy that will alarm anyone who believes in free markets and fair competition, Herbert wrote. Rather than promote domestic employment, this new fee will only do more of the same, protect large, established, and politically connected firms at the expense of smaller, newer, and less connected firms, and increase the cost of presently done with H-1B visas.

For tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, who collectively employ thousands of workers on H-1B status, an additional $100,000 per worker is annoying, but not devastating, Herbert said. But what about a small tech startup in, say, Austin, trying to hire a new programmer from India to help them get off the ground, or a family-owned engineering company in Ohio that found a perfect candidate in Germany. For these smaller operations, which are the backbone of America's workforce, and the creators of our world-leading dynamism,

an extra $100,000 fee is a crushing barrier that effectively prices them out of the global talent market. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to what industry experts are saying. Some experts note the outsized effect this policy will have on India. Others say the rule can help U.S. workers and industries if properly executed. In Bloomberg, Andy Mukherjee suggested Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will pay a price for H-1B visa curbs. It's hard to say what President Donald Trump's extraordinary attack on immigration will mean for the future of U.S. tech dominance.

What's clearer, however, is the immediate challenge he has created for his friend Narendra Modi, days after wishing him a happy 75th, birthday, Mukherjee said. Indians account for more than 70% of all H-1B visas. A steep $100,000 entry fee paid by employers for every worker entering the U.S. under the program will effectively gut it, forcing large outsourcing companies such as Bangaluru-based Info-SysltD to rethink their business strategy. To immigrant families, an already arduous path to permanent residency in America will look like an impossible dream now. Naturally, even many employees currently in the U.S. would ask companies to move them elsewhere. But where? Canada, Australia, Singapore? Somewhere within India, Mukherjee wrote. The U.S. tech and finance industries have at least a couple of options

besides mass relocation of foreign-born talent. They could challenge the legality of the entry fee. For India, the problem is much bigger. In the free press, Josh Code interviewed Min Kim, an immigration startup founder, about the fallout in Silicon Valley from the new rule. I think this is probably a long time coming. It's an important incremental step for a visa program that has existed for decades, but has faced a tremendous amount of scrutiny and, frankly, some amounts of abuse. And so I think this is directionally a great step in curbing some of the concerns that people on both sides of the political aisle have with the program at large. What do we deem to be in the national interest, Kim said? There are occupations that truly are absolutely necessary and important in order

for us to win the AI race and continue the revitalization of the energy and manufacturing industry. A proposed suggestion on how to improve it broadly is this. If we're really looking to revise this program to select for the ultra-elite talent, then prioritizing by compensation is a good proxy for that. And so raising the salary floor has been a long-suggested improvement to the overall program, Kim said. The rollout may have been confusing, and still there are lots of open questions, but it seems the administration is getting at an important element, which is this. We, America, want to be attracting the absolute best talent in the world,

but not at the expense of those who are already here. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for what the left and the right and some industry experts are saying, which brings us to my take. So I've seen opinions on this policy ranging from explicit opposition to lukewarm defense. What I haven't seen is a lot of enthusiastic support for it. Personally, I would put myself in the wait and sea camp. Something about the overall policy is very Trumpian.

It has the shock and all value of an eye-catching sticker price and the characteristic bluntness of his blow-it-all-up approach to bureaucracy. Yet, I can see the upside, too, and I'm curious how businesses will react in practice as opposed to their press releases. Before analyzing the policy, I want to start by engaging with the Trump administration's motivations behind it. The White House believes that U.S. companies are abusing the H-1B system, gaming it to their advantage, suppressing wages, and supplanting the U.S. workforce rather than supplementing it.

By introducing a large one-time fee, the administration hopes to force companies into only using H-1B visas for the absolute best of the best workers. When we wrote about the Elon Musk versus MAGA blow-up over the H-1B program, which feels like three years ago, but was really just eight months ago, I addressed some of these framing arguments. Little evidence exists that H-1B workers actually depress the wages of American workers. The program is explicitly designed to avoid harming U.S. workers, and we probably want enough flexibility to hire a lot of skilled immigrants into sectors like tech, where H-1B visas are popular.

At the same time, the program does. suffer from some of the problems the administration has identified. It has gotten much bigger than it was ever intended to be, and is now dominated by recipients from one country, India. Employers do game the system. Middlemen do exploit loopholes in the application phase, and the whole process has genuinely suffered in the shadows. In some specific industries, the outcome has been exactly what the president suggests. U.S. workers are getting boxed out for cheaper labor from abroad. And it's not just that employers are gaming the system to the detriment of U.S. workers. H-1B visa holders themselves have suffered even more. Last year, we published an insightful reader essay from Yash Sharma, a legal immigrant

in the U.S. on an H-1B visa, about some of the harsh realities of working here under this program. H-1B workers have their travel options restricted. In some case, they're unable to even leave the country to go home for a family member's funeral, and they have next to no job flexibility within the country because leaving or losing their jobs would mean losing their immigration status. Without being able to quit or take another job, workers can become trapped in a position where they can't ask for a raise or more competitive salary, and in turn, companies can insulate their immigrant labor from normal free market pressures to create incentives for them to stay instead of looking for more money elsewhere. Simply put, if H-1B workers will accept lower wages and not try to leave their

jobs, which many of them will, that can both suppress wages and block out native-born workers, all while creating exploitative conditions for those visa holders. Yet, despite these dynamics and despite employees' anecdotal experiences, there also isn't that much evidence that the H-1B program has been overtly disruptive for the native-born labor market. As the economist Noah Smith explained in 2022, H-1B workers make up just shy of half a million workers in the tech sector, which has five to 12 million employees overall. So these visa holders just do not comprise that larger proportion. At the same time, hiring H-1B workers is already discouragingly difficult since the government rejects over 80% of H-1B applications. Given that,

the existing program is already competitive for employers and employees. What will the Trump administration's new rule do? One potential upside is that it could address the narrow kind of abuse from large companies who flood the lottery with applications, grab hundreds or thousands of visas, and then box out smaller companies from the H-1B visa program and American workers from applying for their jobs. The $100,000 fee makes that path a lot more cost prohibitive and will change even large companies' cost-benefit calculations. At the same time, it's just as easy to imagine the opposite effect. If wealthier corporations have a huge advantage over smaller employers, raising the fee could only make that advantage more uneven.

For instance, if I wanted to hire a programmer on an H-1B visa, I might consider doing so for $10,000, which Tangle could afford. But there's no way I would do that for a $100,000 fee. Maybe that's what Trump wants, companies like Tangle to be boxed out of the system. But is that really going to stop Amazon or Google or Apple, which offer far and away most of these H-1B jobs? Of course not. It's just going to wash out some of the places.

they had to compete with before. Another possibility is that larger American companies who have international offices just start hiring workers abroad. This was already happening, but there's good reason to suspect this policy might accelerate the process. Imagine you control hiring for a company like Apple,

which has offices across the world. Instead of recruiting through the H-1B program, why not just start sending foreign workers to the United Kingdom, where the barrier for entry won't include $100,000 fee? Indeed, some British, British companies are already calling on the UK to take advantage of this opportunity.

To that end, I think we know what the impact is going to be for U.S.-based startups. We just won't hire H-1B workers. I'm less sure what the larger dominant tech companies will do, and their reaction is probably the most important thing to know in order to judge this policy on its merits.

The administration is correct that American STEM graduates are struggling to find jobs, and many of them are applying for positions that go to H-1B workers. As Bloomberg's Patricia Lopez, has put it, the unemployment rates for physics, computer science, and chemistry majors are far worse than those of college graduates overall and nearly double those of the, what are you doing with that degree graduates of art history and performing arts programs. This discrepancy could be

due to other factors, like the prevalence of AI. What we know for sure is that the discrepancy is real, and we should probably do something about it. One smart aspect of Trump's approach is that the massive tilt he just applied to the playing field will level out again after a year. which point the administration says it will reevaluate the impact of the new fee. I'd prefer, as always, that a gigantic policy change like this was worked out in Congress, but if you're going to throw around disruptive executive power, limiting it to a year-long experiment before taking a look at how the policy is performing is certainly my preferred approach. And finally, when we first covered Trump's tariff policy, I made the mistake of not considering the possibility that the whole thing

would come down with legal challenges. That lesson applies here. it's very possible this executive order is struck down by the courts. But if this order holds up, I'd like to wait and see how this year goes and how the larger U.S. companies react. I'm both skeptical of the program needed a sledgehammer and sympathetic to the idea that the status quo was untenable. Yet until we see what the people gaming the system actually do in response to this challenge from Trump,

I think the wisest thing to do is to wait and see. We'll be right back after this quick break. If you're a Chicago business looking to give back locally, gardeners is your kind of nonprofit. We work in under-resourced schools across the South and West Sides, helping students grow fresh food and learn about health, sustainability, and equity. Your corporate sponsorship supports hands-on education,

youth mentorship, and the transformation of school gardens into vibrant green spaces. Learn more about sponsorship opportunities at gardeners.org and let's grow something together. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Georgette in British Columbia.

Georgette said, can you clarify when an immigrant to the U.S. has protection under the Constitution? If a person is illegal or undocumented, why would they be protected under the Constitution? So, great question. Any foreigner in the United States is subject to most protections under the Constitution. The framers intentionally wrote the rights described in the document and the amendments in the Bill of Rights to apply to persons and not citizens as they envision these rights to be endowed in everyone by a creator and not granted by the government.

The Supreme Court has clarified this interpretation, a few times since. In 1886, the court found in Yick Woe v. Hopkins that even a citizen who is subject of a foreign country is still afforded equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In 1903, the Supreme Court clarified in Yamataya v. Fisher, or Japanese immigrant case that the right-to-do process applies to an alien who has entered the country and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction and a part of its population. This ruling was affirmed Matthews v. Diaz in 1976, which states clearly that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments applied to everyone in the United States, including those who had entered unlawfully. On a practical level, this makes

sense. You can't tell whether a person is here legally or illegally by looking at them, so you want the government to treat everyone the same. However, court rulings have placed some limits on these protections. The Supreme Court found in 1904 that the First Amendment does not protect aliens who are advocating for anarchy. Additionally, non-citizens are not explicitly granted the right to vote under the 15th Amendment, though several jurisdictions permit them to vote in local elections, and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in 2023 that unauthorized immigrants do not have the right to bear arms. One simple way to think about this is that anyone on American soil is granted the kind of protective rights, like due process, you might expect them to have while interacting with law enforcement

or our court system, while not everyone is granted more participatory rights. like voting or the right to bear arms just by virtue of being here. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks.

On Monday, the State Department posted new restrictions on Iranian diplomats, barring them from making wholesale or luxury purchases in the United States without State Department approval. In recent years, Iranian diplomatic personnel and their families have frequented wholesale stores like Costco, buying consumer goods that aren't available in Iran in bulk and shipping them back to their countries. The State Department said the restrictions are part of its maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian government and supporting the Iranian people in their pursuit of accountability for the regime and for a better life. News Nation has this story and there's a link in today's episode description.

All right. Next up is our numbers section. Congress created the H-1B visa category in 1990. The current annual cap on H-1B visas is 65,000. The additional number of H-1B visas made available for foreign professionals who graduate with a master's degree or doctorate from a U.S. school is 20,000. In 2021, the median wage for H-1B workers was $108,000, while the median wage for U.S. workers was $45,760. The percent growth in the median wage for H-1B workers between 2003 and 2021 is plus 52%. H-1B visa approvals for initial and continuing employment for applicants from India between September 2022 and October 2023 is 279,386, the most of any country. H-1B visa approvals for initial and continuing employment for applicants from China between September

2012 and October 2023 is 45,344, the second most of any country. And H-1B visa approvals for initial and continuing employment for applicants from the Philippines between September 2022 and October 2023 is 4,619, the third most of any country. And last but not least, R have a nice day story. On his first day back to school, 14-year-old Cody Trinkle got to meet his hero, Daryl. While skateboarding near his home in July, Cody crashed and fell 240 feet into a forested ravine. Cody suffered a brain bleed and contracted pneumonia while he fought to survive as a rescue team frantically searched for him. After 80 hours, he was finally found by Daryl, a police canine. Cody spent 11 days in a medically induced coma and weeks in the hospital, but he and his

family got a chance to thank Daryl in person. He was on a mission that day, which I'm grateful for, Cody's mother, Stephanie said. But just seeing him today and seeing Cody get to meet him is pretty amazing. KSDK has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode.

As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets to a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing all.

Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com. If you're a Chicago business looking to give back locally,

Gardeneers is your kind of nonprofit. We work in under-resourced schools across the South and West Sides, helping students grow fresh food and learn about health, sustainability, and equity. Your corporate sponsorship supports hands-on education, youth mentorship, and the transformation of school gardens into vibrant green spaces. Learn more about sponsorship opportunities at gardeners.org

and let's grow something together.