The law says HHS. The newest science says now.
Thesis
Under Public Law 90-602 (codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 360hh–360ss), the Secretary of HHS “shall” run a continuing electronic-radiation control program—including research and, when needed, performance standards. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit sent the FCC back to the drawing board for failing to justify its 1996 RF limits. Since then, federal RF health research has stalled, despite new WHO-commissioned reviews elevating evidence of harm. That legal + scientific combination creates a clear duty path for HHS: restart the research, publish the findings, and—if warranted—promulgate product standards.
1) What the newest WHO reviews actually say (2024–2025)
Cancer (animals)
The WHO-commissioned systematic review led by Mevissen (2025, Environment International) rates the evidence “high certainty” that RF-EMF exposure causes gliomas and heart schwannomas in rodents. The review reports benchmark doses (BMDs) including 0.177 W/kg for heart schwannomas in one positive study and 4.25 W/kg for gliomas in another, underscoring that some adverse effects appear at sub-watt-per-kilogram SARs. Bottom line: high-certainty hazard signal in animals for two tumor types.
Male fertility
The WHO-commissioned Cordelli et al. review (2024) initially graded the reduced pregnancy rate evidence as moderate certainty. A 2025 corrigendum tightened the synthesis: the key sentence now reads “indicate a detrimental effect” (the word possible was removed), and the pooled odds ratio = 1.68 (68% higher odds of failed pregnancies when exposed males mate with unexposed females). A library record of the corrigendum notes the GRADE certainty was upgraded from moderate to high. Direction of effect and certainty both strengthened.
Mechanisms (why non-thermal matters)
2021 and 2025 reviews by Panagopoulos synthesize evidence that pulsed/modulated real-world signals can perturb voltage-gated ion channels (VGIC/VGCC), dysregulate intracellular calcium, and drive oxidative stress—a biologically plausible pathway linking RF exposures to DNA damage and developmental/reproductive effects. >95% of studies using real consumer devices (phones/DECT/Wi-Fi) reported biological effects, while many “no-effect” studies used simplified, unmodulated generators.
Human pregnancy data (new)
A 2025 BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth cohort (Yazd, Iran; n = 1,666) found that longer cell-phone call duration during pregnancy was associated with higher risk of miscarriage and with abnormal birth weight and infant length (adjusted risk ratios reported per unit of exposure). While exposure assessment in human studies remains a limiting factor, the direction is consistently adverse, complementing the animal evidence.
2) What MAHA said—and what it didn’t include
HHS’s MAHA Assessment (May 16, 2025) mentions electromagnetic radiation, acknowledges the NTP animal “clear evidence,” but then leans on a review of “over 50 studies” to conclude that evidence of impact in children is “low to inadequate,” calling for more research. The document does not cite the 2025 WHO cancer review (Mevissen) or the 2025 male-fertility corrigendum. That omission matters because those WHO-commissioned updates materially raise the weight of evidence.
Quote (MAHA Assessment, p. 43):
“However, a recent systematic review of over 50 studies found low to inadequate evidence on impact in children and called for more high-quality research.”
3) The law: what Public Law 90-602 requires HHS to do
HHS “shall establish and carry out” an electronic product radiation control program to protect public health. As part of that program, the Secretary “shall plan, conduct, coordinate, and support research”—ongoing, not optional. He must also publish findings.
When necessary for public health and safety, “the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe performance standards for electronic products to control the emission of electronic product radiation.” (That term expressly includes non-ionizing radiation.) In plain English: HHS has a product-standards lever.
Important scope note: Congress also preserved other agencies’ roles. This subpart “shall not be construed as superseding or limiting” another agency’s functions. That means HHS cannot simply strip the FCC’s spectrum-licensing authority, but HHS can and must (1) run the health research program and (2) set product performance standards where needed—both of which inform and pressure-test the FCC’s exposure framework.
4) The court: why the 2021 D.C. Circuit decision points back to HHS
In Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC (Aug 13, 2021), the court held the FCC’s decision to keep the 1996 limits “arbitrary and capricious” for failing to give a reasoned response on non-cancer harms, child vulnerabilities, and environmental effects. The case was remanded to the FCC. To answer that remand credibly, the FCC must rely on current health science—which HHS is statutorily charged to produce and publish. This is where the 90-602 mandates bite: absent an active HHS research program and published evaluations, the FCC cannot reasonably discharge the remand on the health questions.
5) The research gap: NTP’s RF program was shut down
Microwave News reported in Feb 2024 (updated Aug 2025) that NTP “closed down its RF radiation research program.” NTP’s own site still hosts legacy pages and reports (including TR-595), but no new RF animal studies are active—a de facto stall right when WHO’s 2024–2025 evidence strengthened. If the statute says HHS “shall plan, conduct, coordinate, and support research,” this pause is hard to reconcile with 90-602.
6) So, can HHS “set the standard”? What HHS can (and cannot) do now
Yes, on products: Under 21 U.S.C. § 360kk, HHS/FDA (CDRH) can promulgate performance standards for electronic products (e.g., handsets, tablets, wearables, routers) to control RF emissions “when necessary to protect the public health and safety.” That could include engineering and labeling requirements, proximity sensors, adaptive duty-cycle caps in body-contact modes, or updated SAR measurement protocols aligned with modern usage (pockets, belts, maternity contexts). This is squarely within HHS’s lane.
No, not unilaterally on towers/spectrum: The FCC retains statutory authority over spectrum, transmitters, and RF compliance for licensees under the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 704). Reassigning primary authority away from FCC would require Congress. But HHS’s published hazard and product-standards record can and should drive the FCC’s health-protective updates (and provide the scientific backbone the D.C. Circuit demanded).
7) Where MAHA under-shoots the WHO record
The May 2025 MAHA Assessment (and September strategy follow-on) did not cite the WHO cancer review (Mevissen 2025) or the male-fertility corrigendum (2025) even though both were public by then or soon after. Instead, it leaned on an earlier umbrella statement that evidence in children is “low to inadequate,” which sits at odds with the upgraded, high-certainty signals on carcinogenicity (animal) and male fertility (animal/in vitro) that policy makers typically use as early-action triggers—especially for protecting pregnancy and development.
8) A concrete, lawful HHS action plan (what should happen this quarter)
-
Restart and modernize the NTP RF program. Cover contemporary signals (LTE/5G NR with realistic pulsing/modulation), ELF/RF interactions, prenatal windows, and low-SAR endpoints flagged by WHO. Pre-register protocols, ensure blinded scoring, and publish data/as-you-go.
-
Issue a formal HHS Health Findings Report under § 360jj synthesizing the WHO reviews, NTP legacy results, and mechanistic evidence (VGIC/VGCC & oxidative stress).
-
Publish specific research gaps and interim risk-management recommendations for pregnancy and children.
-
Open an HHS rulemaking docket under § 360kk on performance standards for consumer RF-emitting products. Focus on body-contact/near-abdomen modes, automatic power management, disclosure/labeling, and test-position realism (pockets/bras/waistbands). Invite FCC/EPA to coordinate but keep the health standard squarely in HHS’s purview.
-
Transmit an interagency scientific memorandum to the FCC (Public Docket) explicitly to support the 2021 remand, summarizing high-certainty WHO findings and NTP conclusions, and recommending child-protective margins pending the new HHS standards.
-
Stand up a pregnancy-and-child RF exposure initiative (clinical advisories, procurement guidelines for schools/clinics, LiFi-first indoors where feasible), citing the WHO upgrades and the Yazd cohort directionality.
-
Commit to annual public updates on RF hazards per § 360ii, with data releases and third-party replication grants.
9) Answering your core claims directly
-
“HHS has the authority to set standards.” True—for electronic products (handsets/wearables/etc.) under § 360kk when necessary to protect public health. That authority exists today.
-
“He sued the FCC and won; now, as HHS Secretary, he must act.” The 2021 remand obliges the FCC to provide a reasoned, health-sound record; HHS’s statutory duties (research + publication + standards) make it the health-science engine that enables a lawful answer. Inaction at HHS prolongs non-compliance.
-
“NTP’s RF research was shut down.” Yes—credible reporting indicates NTP quit RF; the official pages remain, but new RF studies aren’t active. That conflicts with 90-602’s “shall…support research” mandate.
-
“WHO now rates cancer and fertility harm high-certainty.” Yes for animal cancer (glioma & heart schwannoma) and male-fertility endpoints following the 2025 corrigendum. MAHA did not cite these updates and instead characterizes child evidence as “low to inadequate.”
10) For families (especially during pregnancy) while agencies catch up
-
Distance beats shielding: keep phones off-body; use speaker/air-tube; don’t store devices against the abdomen.
-
Reduce continuous exposure: prefer wired at home; turn off unused transmitters at night; prioritize text over long calls.
-
Indoors: consider LiFi-first or low-power APs set away from sleeping/crib areas. (These are prudent measures aligned with the signal and with WHO’s upgraded concerns.)
Bottom line
Public Law 90-602 is not a relic. It gives HHS the duty to run the health science on electronic radiation and the power to set product standards when science justifies them. The 2021 court remand put the FCC on notice; the 2024–2025 WHO reviews elevated the evidence on cancer and male fertility; and NTP’s RF stall leaves a glaring compliance gap. If HHS restarts the research and moves a § 360kk rulemaking, it will both meet the law and give the FCC the record it needs to finally modernize national protections.
Key Sources (high-value excerpts)
-
WHO cancer review (2025): high-certainty for gliomas and heart schwannomas; BMDs include 0.177 W/kg (heart) and 4.25 W/kg (glioma).
-
WHO male fertility corrigendum (2025): wording changed to “detrimental effect”; pooled OR = 1.68; GRADE certainty upgraded to high.
-
Mechanism: Pulsed/modulated signals; VGIC/VGCC and oxidative stress pathway; >95% effects in studies with real devices.
-
Human pregnancy cohort (2025): longer cell-phone call duration associated with miscarriage and growth endpoints.
-
MAHA Assessment (May 2025): cites “low to inadequate” evidence on children and does not reference the 2025 WHO reviews.
-
Statute: HHS must run research and can set product standards (21 U.S.C. §§ 360ii, 360kk; non-ionizing included at § 360hh).
-
Court: EHT v. FCC (2021)—FCC’s retention of 1996 limits arbitrary and capricious; remanded.
-
NTP status: Program quit RF; legacy pages remain; no active RF animal studies.
