What Changed, What’s Missing, and Why It Matters Right Now
In mid-January 2026, a quiet but consequential shift occurred in Washington: the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., moved away from prior FDA web content that conveyed strong “no-risk” conclusions about cellphone radiation—and simultaneously signaled renewed federal interest in studying radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and health effects.
For readers trying to make sense of what’s happening, the key point is not partisan. It is procedural and scientific: when a federal health agency removes or rewrites definitive safety language and replaces it with statutory “duty language” (testing, monitoring, hazard control), it signals that the public-facing posture is shifting from closure to inquiry.
This page explains:
-
what changed at FDA/HHS (with “before vs. after” documentation),
-
why the “NTP exposures were too high” talking point is incomplete when the actual data are reviewed,
-
what the MAHA assessment did (and did not) incorporate—especially its reliance on pre‑2023 literature in its EMR section,
-
why the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF policy still matters,
-
and where Secretary Kennedy’s record on wireless risk can be reviewed directly in video and transcript form.
What changed in January 2026
According to reporting, HHS removed certain FDA webpages that contained longstanding conclusions dismissing health risks from cellphone radiation, and HHS indicated a renewed review/study effort intended to identify gaps in knowledge. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon described the removals as targeting webpages with “old conclusions” to clear space for a fresh review.
At the same time, not all government messaging moved in lockstep; some related pages still retain “no credible evidence” framing.
What is not yet public: a complete study protocol, scope, timeline, leadership roster, or a dedicated “project page” hosted by HHS that readers can cite as the canonical study link. Reuters specifically noted that details of the planned research had not been disclosed.
Before vs. after: the FDA’s “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” page
The archived FDA language (late 2025)
An archived FDA page (captured October 26, 2025) contains categorical statements emphasizing that “the weight of scientific evidence has not linked” cellphone RF exposure (at or below FCC limits) to health problems.
The current FDA framing (January 2026)
Today, the “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” URL no longer serves that standalone content and instead routes readers into the FDA’s broader “Cell Phones” page—which foregrounds statutory duties and inter‑agency roles.
The current page emphasizes that FDA shares responsibilities with the FCC and—“under the law”—FDA is responsible for, among other things:
-
consulting with other federal agencies on testing and evaluation techniques; and
-
collecting, analyzing, and making available scientific information on the nature and extent of hazards and the control of electronic product radiation.
That “duty-first” presentation is a meaningful contrast with the older “case closed” messaging.
Why this shift is newsworthy even for people who “don’t follow EMF debates”
Public health agencies do two different things on controversial questions:
-
Summarize current evidence, and
-
Commit to ongoing surveillance and research when uncertainty remains.
The January 2026 changes are notable because they move the FDA’s most visible framing closer to “ongoing duty and monitoring,” and farther from “definitive dismissal.”
RFK Jr.’s wireless record: direct clips, direct transcripts, direct sources
People searching this topic in 2026 are not searching abstractly. They are searching “RFK Jr cell phone radiation,” “RFK Jr Wi‑Fi cancer,” “RFK Jr 5G halt,” and “what did he say before becoming HHS Secretary.”
Below is a curated library of direct sources. Where possible, the library includes primary video, government transcripts, or full-length interviews.
A. Confirmation hearing exchange on Wi‑Fi and cancer
A widely circulated exchange from Kennedy’s confirmation hearing record includes a direct statement attributed to Kennedy: “Wi‑Fi causes cancer and it opens your blood brain barrier ….”
Primary hearing resources (video/transcript):
B. NewsNation town hall (2023): “5G is dangerous”
In a June 2023 town hall appearance, Kennedy made claims characterizing 5G as dangerous and cited biological mechanisms (as he described them) to support his position.
Full-length town hall (video):
Secondary coverage discussing the town hall:
C. Joe Rogan Experience #1999 (full interview)
Kennedy’s views on environmental health risks—including wireless radiation—have also been discussed in long-form interviews that remain searchable and shareable.
Full episode (primary video):
D. Public speech on 5G (Berlin rally, 2020)
Kennedy has delivered public remarks on 5G and wireless exposure in advocacy settings.
Video source:
(Referenced via an advocacy site that links the speech.)
E. Viral clip on children’s phone-carry habits (X/Twitter post)
A widely circulated clip quotes Kennedy warning parents not to let children hold phones to their heads or carry them in pockets near reproductive organs. The version most often shared traces back to a social post linking to a video upload.
Source link (social post hosting the clip):
F. UK media coverage (January 2026)
A UK headline reported that Kennedy would investigate whether phones cause cancer and called for a halt to expansion of 5G services (as reported).
Correcting the “NTP exposures were too high” talking point
Why that framing is incomplete—and how the data actually reads
A recurring rebuttal to animal evidence is that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) used “too high” exposure levels, implying the results are irrelevant to real-world conditions.
That argument fails as a blanket dismissal for three reasons:
1) NTP tested multiple exposure levels, including lower levels
NTP’s TR‑595 design included whole-body exposures at 0, 1.5, 3, and 6 W/kg.
2) Several findings were observed in lower exposure groups, and some outcomes were non‑monotonic
In NTP’s GSM-modulated study summary table, one reported brain endpoint—glial cell hyperplasia—appears in a non‑monotonic pattern across exposure groups (0/90, 2/90, 3/90, 1/90).
Non‑monotonicity matters because it directly undermines the simplistic claim that “only extreme power levels produce effects,” and it is consistent with broader biological literature where certain responses do not rise linearly with intensity.
3) Convergent evidence and updated reviews strengthen the animal-cancer signal
NTP’s final technical report concludes “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity in male rats for malignant schwannomas of the heart under both GSM and CDMA modulations.
In addition, a WHO-funded systematic review of animal studies published in 2025 (Mevissen et al.) reported high certainty of evidence for increased risk of gliomas and malignant heart schwannomas in laboratory animals.
That same review explicitly notes that questions like whether a monotonic dose–response “holds,” and whether SAR is the right metric for non-thermal effects, are critical.
What MAHA included—and why the evidence window matters
The White House “Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment” (MAHA report) contains an EMR/RFR section that characterizes the evidence as “low to inadequate.”
Crucially for readers assessing completeness: the EMR citations in that section include a 2022 systematic review (Bodewein et al., 2022) and other references that are also pre‑2023.
That matters because the evidence base has continued to evolve—and because, by 2025, a WHO-funded animal-cancer systematic review had reached “high certainty” conclusions for certain tumor types in animals.
In other words: if a federal review framework is anchored primarily in pre‑2023 literature for its EMR conclusions, it risks underweighting the most recent systematic review work that is specifically designed to reassess certainty.
The legal backdrop that is still unresolved: the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand of FCC RF policy
In Environmental Health Trust v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2021), the court held that the FCC’s failure to provide a reasoned explanation for aspects of its RF decision-making rendered the order “arbitrary and capricious” in several respects, including issues tied to long-term exposure and children, among others.
This matters for today’s readers because:
-
The U.S. regulatory posture on RF exposure has been operating in a prolonged “remand” environment; and
-
The FDA’s previous categorical safety framing was often used rhetorically to defend the broader status quo.
When FDA removes or rewrites definitive language and emphasizes ongoing statutory duties instead, it changes the “support structure” that has historically been used to argue that existing standards require no further reconsideration.
What RF Safe believes needs to happen next
A practical, research-forward agenda (not a slogan)
RF Safe’s position is that “webpage edits” are not the endpoint. They are the beginning of what should be a transparent, accountable research and policy cycle.
1) Publish the HHS study details
HHS should publish a dedicated public page describing:
-
study scope, leadership, and governance,
-
the methodology (review protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria, endpoints),
-
timelines and deliverables,
-
and conflict-of-interest safeguards.
As of the reporting cited here, those specifics were not disclosed.
2) Incorporate post‑2022 systematic reviews explicitly
Any credible federal assessment must reconcile MAHA’s “low to inadequate” framing for EMR with the 2025 WHO-funded animal-cancer systematic review’s “high certainty” conclusions for specific tumor types in animals.
3) Address non-linearity directly
Regulators should stop allowing “high exposure” talking points to substitute for actual biological interpretation—especially where non‑monotonic patterns appear in the data.
4) Modernize exposure metrics beyond a heat-only worldview
Even the 2025 systematic review emphasizes that interpreting RF‑EMF effects involves uncertainties about exposure metrics, cumulative exposure, and dose–response forms.
5) Pair research with immediate risk-reduction infrastructure
RF Safe advocates for aggressive reduction of unnecessary indoor RF exposure in children’s environments—especially schools—by accelerating alternatives (e.g., wired where feasible and Li‑Fi where appropriate) and pushing device policies that reduce body-contact exposure.
6) Revisit siting and community-protection rules
RF Safe also argues for stronger precautionary siting practices around sensitive receptors (schools, childcare, residential areas). The “1,500‑foot” setback concept is a precautionary policy target RF Safe promotes; it is not a current federal standard and should be debated with engineering, exposure modeling, and community planning input.
Where RF Safe’s mechanistic framing fits
“S4 MitoSpin” as a plausibility framework—separate from a clinical claim
Amid renewed national attention, RF Safe and allied advocates often point to mechanistic plausibility frameworks—designed to explain how low-intensity, non-ionizing fields might interact with biology beyond simple heating.
RF Safe’s “S4 MitoSpin” framing is presented as an integrative model emphasizing:
-
S4 (voltage-sensor domains / bioelectric signaling),
-
Mito (mitochondrial oxidative stress amplification),
-
Spin (radical pair / spin-dependent biochemistry concepts).
RF Safe’s view is that mechanistic plausibility is precisely what must be evaluated in modern research designs, and not hand-waved away by “non-ionizing = harmless” shorthand.
What readers can do now
Practical, low-regret exposure-reduction habits
Regardless of where the policy debate lands, the basic exposure minimization logic remains simple:
-
increase distance between device and body,
-
use speakerphone or wired/air-tube headsets (when appropriate),
-
avoid carrying an active phone against the body for long periods,
-
limit use in weak-signal environments (phones transmit at higher power when struggling for signal).
These steps do not require anyone to “pick a side” in the debate; they are straightforward risk-reduction behaviors while the evidence base and federal posture continue to evolve.
