For decades, the official word on wireless safety has been consistent: as long as your device doesn't heat up your body tissue, you are safe. 

Besides that landmark 10-year NTP study funded by the FDA that concluded significant health effects of EMF in 2018, the government has followed the FCC’s lead in burying any new research under the rug. 

But in January 2026, 30 years after the current US wireless radiation standards were initially set, that narrative shifted. In a series of updates from the FDA and HHS, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. government is in the midst of reconsidering their conclusions on electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

FDA and HHS Question Health Impacts of Wireless Radiation

Reports from news outlets have highlighted a significant change at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency quietly removed several webpages that definitively claimed cell phone radiation was "safe" at current levels.

This move followed an announcement by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that the Department of Health and Human Services will launch a comprehensive study to identify "knowledge gaps" in wireless safety, specifically focusing on new technologies like 5G and wearables. For an administration that has historically dismissed these concerns, this represents a significant shift toward the "precautionary principle."

The Backstory: RFK Jr., CHD, and the Fight for Updated Standards

This pivot is not a surprise for Secretary Kennedy. Before leading the HHS, he founded Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which has long challenged the status quo and fights for children’s health and safety. In 2019, the CHD sued the FCC after the commission refused to update its 1996 safety guidelines. Kennedy and the CHD argued that the standards were based on obsolete data and ignored thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing harm.

In a landmark 2021 victory, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had been "arbitrary and capricious" in its refusal to review the science. Now, Kennedy is in a position to lead the very federal review he spent years fighting for in court.

Exposing the "Zombie Science" of 1996

Coinciding with this news is a groundbreaking review published in Frontiers in Public Health. The paper argues that U.S. policy is trapped in "zombie science." Our current safety limits were established in 1996, a time when "mobile" meant a brick phone in a briefcase. These standards were designed primarily to protect a 220-pound fully grown man from short-term heating (thermal) effects.

 

The Frontiers study points out three major policy failures:

 

• The Thermal Myth: It ignores "non-thermal" biological damage, like oxidative stress, voltage-gated calcium channel impacts, and DNA breaks, that happens far below the heat threshold.
• Child Vulnerability: Children have thinner skulls and more conductive brain tissue, meaning radiation is absorbed more deeply in their bodies than adults, yet current policy provides no specific safeguards for them.
• Regulatory Capture: The study highlights a "revolving door" between the FCC and the wireless industry, noting that former FCC Chair Tom Wheeler (industry lobbyist), Ajit Pai (Verizon attorney), and current Chair Brendan Carr (CTIA attorney) all represent the industries they regulate. This has led to a lack of independent oversight and the defunding of health-based research at agencies like the EPA.

 

Additionally, here are other critical policy failures and proposed reforms detailed in the research:

 

• Defunding Oversight: While the FCC handles licensing, it has no health expertise. The EPA, which does have that expertise, has been sidelined since its radiation program was defunded in 1986. This created a "regulatory vacuum" with no agency monitoring ambient EMF levels.
• Cold War Origins: Our 1996 limits actually trace back to 1953. These standards were calculated for Cold War radar operators to prevent fevers—not chronic, 24/7 exposure from modern smart devices.
• The SAR Loophole: SAR stands for specific absorption rate, and is how much radiation is absorbed into a part of a body. Phones are currently tested to be “safe” by the manufacturers themselves at a distance (up to 25mm) from the body. Because most people carry phones in their pockets or against their ears, real-world exposure often exceeds even the FCC's outdated SAR limits.
  

 

The review additionally points to legislative and state-level models for how to improve the system:

 

• The "Cell Phone Right To Know Act" (Proposed 2012): This failed federal bill is cited as a gold standard for reform. It would have mandated radio frequency radiation labeling at the point of sale, funded independent research, and allowed local governments to consider health when zoning cell towers (which is currently illegal under the 1996 Telecommunications Act).
• The New Hampshire Model: The study highlights the 2020 New Hampshire State Commission report, which issued 15 recommendations, including:
  • Requirement for 1,640-foot setbacks for cell towers from homes and schools.
  • Hardwired (fiber-optic) connections for schools instead of Wi-Fi.
  • State-level monitoring of RF intensity.
  • Digital "black boxes" on towers to record real-world emission levels.
    

 

What Will Happen Next?

The Frontiers review highlights the New Hampshire Model and the Cell Phone Right To Know Act as blueprints for reform, proposing 1,640-foot setbacks for towers and hardwired fiber-optic connections in schools.

The HHS announcement to study wireless radiation exposure and health impacts is surely to take years to initiate, conduct, and draw conclusions from. So while, already, official FDA text claiming EMF radiation is safe has been redacted from websites, it may be a long time before anything new is added. Policy may follow in the years after that, or it may come before any new study data has concluded.

Regardless, a standoff remains. While the HHS and FDA move toward caution, the FCC is still pushing to expand wireless infrastructure, such as the recent expansion in the 3.5 GHz band. This conflict forces individuals to face these risks every day.

Current Recommendations: The Precautionary Principle

At DefenderShield, we emphasize the precautionary principle: adoption of preventative measures to address potential risks in the environment. If some people think there are bears in the forest and some people think not, you should take preventative measures to protect yourself from the potential for bears, hopefully before one walks up to you.

We believe the best way to approach EMF radiation safety is through mindfulness, balance, and doing your own research to make informed health decisions. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on government or regulatory body standards to protect our health, as these standards are often decades behind.

 

While we wait for federal policy to catch up to science, and for more science to establish clearer conclusions, you can take control of your environment. We are here to keep you informed and shielded so you can continue to maintain your health in our ever-changing digital world.