“We’re getting rid of all of the cancer—I call it cancer—the cancer caused by the Biden Administration.”
—President Donald Trump, on the day of his swearing-in
Few phrases can jolt public attention like the word “cancer.” It conjures images of silent, devastating growths that, unchecked, can destroy life. When President Donald Trump used that word to describe his intention to dismantle what he viewed as the harmful legacy of the previous administration, he likely meant bureaucratic or policy-related “cancers.” But for many observers, his words also revived questions about a very literal cancer: the abrupt termination of crucial National Toxicology Program (NTP) research under President Biden—research that found “clear evidence” linking cell phone radiation to specific tumors in laboratory animals.
This article sets out to expose that lesser-known story and its constitutional underpinnings. On the surface, it is about an executive order, an administration change, and a potential public health crisis. Dig deeper, and you discover a decades-old legal mechanism—Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996—that effectively gags local communities from even discussing health concerns around wireless infrastructure. Together, these threads speak to the heart of American democracy and local autonomy, the nature of scientific inquiry, and the urgent need for modernized guidelines on electromagnetic radiation.
Will we heed the lesson and bring back the research we need to protect future generations, or will we bury our heads in the sand—afraid to confront the “real cancer” in our midst?
I. A Most Provocative Oath: The Day Trump Called Out “Cancer”
President Trump’s remarks, captured by Forbes Breaking News, were both provocative and terse:
He then pivoted to discuss unrelated issues, such as the Gaza conflict. But the reference to “cancer” lingers. In a more literal sense, critics have accused the Biden administration of severing the lifeblood of one of the country’s most crucial research efforts on cancer risks—particularly regarding cell phone radiation. After significant public funding and years of study, that research ended abruptly, leaving many questions unanswered.
When Public Health Met Politics
The end of the NTP research was not just a budget line item. It was, for many, a blow to the pursuit of scientific truth—especially given that some of the earliest results pointed to a link between long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and the development of malignancies like glioblastoma (GBM). Biden, who tragically lost his son Beau to GBM, had once championed a “Cancer Moonshot.” How, then, did the administration that promised to make battling cancer a priority also cut off a groundbreaking study that might have shed light on one of its possible causes?
President Trump’s vow to undo the “cancer caused by the Biden administration” is now being reexamined in a starkly different light: Could he be compelled to confront the cessation of that NTP study and reinstate the critical work? Or will the talk remain symbolic, with the real “cancer” left unaddressed?
II. Biden’s “Fake Cancer Moonshot” vs. the Real Ending of NTP Research
A Red Herring at Face Value
In August 2024, President Biden announced $150 million in grants as part of his “Cancer Moonshot,” echoing the language of an administration deeply committed to eradicating cancer. But behind the scenes, the White House had already withdrawn support from a major National Toxicology Program project investigating the carcinogenic effects of cell phone radiation.
- NTP Findings: Years of work revealed “clear evidence” that prolonged RF exposure led to the development of tumors in lab rats—specifically gliomas and schwannomas.
- Abrupt Termination: Despite these findings, funding dried up, halting further study and leaving many scientists to lament the “tobacco scenario” repeated—where early signs of harm are not followed up due to political or corporate interests.
A Very Personal Tragedy
The Biden family is no stranger to glioblastoma. Beau Biden, President Biden’s son, died from GBM in 2015. Speculation has arisen that frequent cell phone use, especially on the side where his tumor emerged, might have contributed to his risk. While causation is far from definitively established, the correlation is enough to raise concern—especially in light of the NTP’s own findings.
If personal experience with GBM could not spur the administration to continue investigating a possible trigger, then what force—public outcry, political pressure, or an incoming executive—might reopen this path of inquiry?
III. The Real Cancer: Dangers of Halting a Crucial Study
1. Glioblastoma on the Rise
Research in multiple countries, including the U.S., England, and the Netherlands, shows a notable increase in glioblastoma incidence over the last few decades. The frontal and temporal lobes, which receive the brunt of cell phone radiation, have seen the most significant tumor upticks. It is a chilling parallel: while lower-grade brain tumors have declined, GBM rates are climbing—possibly masked when one aggregates all brain tumors into a single statistic.
2. Non-Thermal Effects: The Elephant in the Room
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets safety guidelines only considering the thermal effects of RF—i.e., tissue heating. However, a growing body of research indicates “non-thermal” mechanisms of harm—such as oxidative stress, DNA strand breaks, and neurological disruptions—operating well below the threshold for measurable heating.
- TheraBionic: An FDA-approved device using low-level RF radiation to treat certain cancers, proving that non-thermal effects can have potent biological impacts.
- NTP / Ramazzini: Both these large-scale studies found consistent patterns of tumor promotion at radiation levels previously considered “safe” under the thermal-only paradigm.
Cutting off the NTP’s research means we remain blind to understanding how these non-thermal effects might translate into real-world health burdens.
3. High-Profile Victims
The tragic stories of Senator John McCain, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Beau Biden converge on a common point: all died of glioblastoma, often on the same side of the head where they used their cell phones. Anecdotal? Possibly. But in combination with animal studies and epidemiological data, it signals that ignoring the potential link might be a monumental oversight in public health policy.
4. A Setback for Therapeutic Research
Ironically, by halting the study of non-thermal effects, we also risk losing breakthroughs like TheraBionic for other cancers. The same phenomenon that can harm cells might be harnessed to attack tumor cells specifically—if only we invested in understanding it. This duality highlights the irresponsibility of cutting off research just as positive and negative effects are being understood.
IV. The Constitutional Crisis: Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act (TCA)
Central to the controversy over cell tower deployment and local autonomy is a lesser-known piece of federal legislation that dates back to 1996—a time when cell phones were still a novelty for most Americans.
Section 704: The Clinton-Era Relic
- Prohibits Local Health Arguments: Section 704 explicitly forbids local governments from denying or regulating the placement of wireless facilities based on health or environmental concerns, provided the facility meets FCC guidelines.
- Silences Courts: Judges are effectively barred from considering health evidence if the corporation can show compliance with outdated thermal-only standards.
- A 10th Amendment Violation?: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states or people. Zoning, land use, and public health traditionally fall under local or state jurisdiction. Section 704 overrides these fundamental principles, critics say, turning localities into rubber stamps for telecom infrastructure.
In a country that prides itself on “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” this near-shutdown of the democratic process at the local level is striking. Parents who see a cell tower erected near their child’s school cannot challenge it on the basis of health, even if they have peer-reviewed studies in hand.
How It Harms Communities
- Censorship of Grievances
Citizens lose their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress if relevant evidence is automatically off-limits. - Paradox of Consumer Choice
Americans can choose between dozens of cereal brands if they worry about an ingredient, but they cannot choose to limit potential RF hazards if a telecom provider meets dated guidelines. - Stifling Scientific Debate
Since localities cannot even reference up-to-date scientific findings in decision-making, the impetus for national policy change weakens. No groundswell of local data or legal challenges can accumulate if it’s quashed at the start.
A Bipartisan Problem
Section 704 passed under President Bill Clinton, remained unamended through the George W. Bush and Obama years, and persists in the Biden era. All the while, technologies advanced from 2G to 5G, and soon 6G, while the law remains anchored in 1996 thinking. If President Trump or any leader wants to claim they are removing “the cancer” caused by a previous administration, shining a light on Section 704’s overreach should be a top priority.
V. FCC Safety Guidelines: A Time Capsule from 1996
The Thermal-Only Myth
The FCC’s safety thresholds rely on the premise that if it doesn’t heat you, it can’t hurt you. That was the prevailing wisdom in the mid-1990s, when cell phones were simple devices used for calls and the concept of streaming high-definition video on a phone was science fiction. Now, the ubiquitous presence of smartphones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and advanced 5G networks means we bathe in far more radiofrequency energy than any prior generation.
Yet, the 1996 guidelines remain. This means:
- No Consideration for Non-Thermal Effects: Studies showing DNA damage, oxidative stress, and other pathways for harm at sub-thermal levels are not factored into safety limits.
- Obsolete Exposure Models: They are based on the usage patterns and device technology of the 1990s, ignoring modern reality—children sleeping next to tablets, or entire classrooms with wireless devices.
- A Legal Shield for Industry: Because the guidelines remain “official,” telecom companies and device manufacturers can simply point to compliance, thus trumping local health concerns under Section 704.
2021 Court Ruling: A Ray of Hope
In August 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for upholding these 1996 guidelines in light of newer scientific evidence. But real policy change has yet to materialize. Many suspect that only a groundswell of public pressure—or a fearless leader willing to clash with powerful telecom lobbies—will spur the FCC to revise its approach.
VI. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) and Why It Matters
A Landmark Study, Abruptly Ended
The NTP set out to address one of the biggest questions of our age: Does cell phone-level radiofrequency radiation cause cancer or other long-term health issues? The multi-year, $30 million study found “clear evidence” that male rats developed malignant gliomas and schwannomas of the heart—a rare but significant result.
- Robust Design: The NTP exposed rats to levels of radiation that mimic real-world usage, including near-field exposures similar to holding a phone next to the head.
- Broad Implications: The results naturally ignited new concerns about children, who have thinner skulls and rapidly developing brains, and who may be more susceptible.
Suddenly, under the Biden administration, additional funding dried up, curtailing follow-up studies that might have offered the clarity necessary to revise health guidelines.
Why We Must Restart It
- Public Health Imperative: Without completed long-term data, billions of cell phone users worldwide remain in a gray area of risk.
- Policy Catalyst: Large-scale, authoritative studies often push regulatory bodies to act, as the findings are harder to dismiss or bury.
- Medical Possibilities: Understanding non-thermal interactions can spur both protective guidelines and therapeutic innovations—like the TheraBionic device that uses certain RF frequencies to combat cancer.
One might argue that if President Trump truly aims to eliminate the “cancer caused by the Biden administration,” reviving the NTP studies would be a powerful and literal way to do it.
VII. A Post-2024 Health Reckoning: The Cases of McCain, Kennedy, and Beau Biden
Personal Stories, Public Concern
- Senator John McCain (1936–2018): Passed away from glioblastoma. Some note that his ranch was near GSM towers, and his frequent phone use could have exacerbated exposure.
- Senator Edward Kennedy (1932–2009): Died of the same type of cancer, also associated with frequent phone use on the tumor’s side of the head.
- Beau Biden (1969–2015): The son of President Biden, died from glioblastoma. Though correlation is not proof, it is a powerful reminder that these tumors can strike painfully close to home.
Could these cases represent outliers, or are they the canaries in the coal mine? The NTP and Ramazzini Institute results hint that they may not be outliers at all.
VIII. TheraBionic and the Paradox of RF Therapy
Proving Non-Thermal Effects (for Good)
The TheraBionic device uses specific RF frequencies at power levels far below typical cell phone emissions to treat inoperable liver cancer—without heat. This fact alone topples the FCC’s old assumption that non-ionizing RF radiation is “biologically inert” except for heating.
- Mechanisms: Includes disruption of cellular signaling pathways, potential immune modulation, and resonance effects.
- Implication: If such a device can selectively harm tumor cells, it underscores that sub-thermal exposures do have potent biological effects.
If we can harness these frequencies to kill cancer cells, could ambient, unregulated exposures also stimulate unwanted effects in healthy tissue?
IX. Unmasking Section 704: A Constitutional Showdown
1. Suppression of Local Rights
When Section 704 was quietly passed in 1996, few Americans understood its ramifications. Local governments effectively lost the right to question telecom infrastructure on the basis of health—even if emerging science suggested potential harm. This undermines:
- First Amendment Freedoms: Citizens can petition their government, but the subject matter (health hazards) is off-limits if compliance with FCC standards is demonstrated.
- Tenth Amendment Principles: Local authorities can regulate liquor stores or tobacco retailers to protect communities, but they cannot do the same with a cell tower’s location if the tower meets mid-1990s benchmarks.
2. Eroding Trust, Fueling Conspiracy
Citizens expect their representatives to champion public health. Instead, they find city councils that shrug, “We can’t consider health evidence, sorry.” This fosters:
- Distrust in Institutions: People feel their government is either ignorant or complicit in ignoring potential risks.
- Polarization and “Fake” Outrage: Grassroots movements like MAGA or MAHA sometimes decry government overreach—yet they often overlook Section 704, a blatant example of corporate-friendly centralization.
3. Calls to Repeal or Amend
Advocates say the time for half-measures is over—Section 704 must be repealed or seriously revised. Doing so would:
- Restore Local Democracy: Allow communities to consider current science and the unique needs of vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.
- Spur National Dialogue: Local action can bubble up, encouraging the FCC and FDA to modernize guidelines if enough municipalities push back.
X. The FDA’s Unmet Mandate: Public Law 90-602
A Forgotten Obligation
In 1968, Congress enacted Public Law 90-602, tasking the FDA with minimizing exposure to “unnecessary electronic product radiation.” This clearly extends to cell phones and wireless devices. Yet after the NTP found “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity, funding was cut rather than expanded.
- Historical Parallels: When data linked smoking to cancer, the government didn’t slash all research; it expanded it.
- Regulatory Failure: The FDA’s mission compels it to investigate non-thermal RFR risks thoroughly, but political pressures and lobbying can interfere, leaving the public unprotected from rapidly proliferating technologies.
Children and Other Vulnerable Groups
If pregnant women, infants, and people with compromised immune systems are more susceptible to lower-level exposures, the FDA’s inaction is especially damning. These populations rely on strong federal oversight in a domain that’s increasingly complex.
XI. A Perfect Storm of Silence and Lobbying
1. Telecom Profits vs. Parents’ Fears
The telecom industry wields massive lobbying power, consistently ranking among the top spenders in Washington. Meanwhile, parents who see a new tower near their child’s school may have nowhere to turn. Local meetings can’t entertain health concerns, and the courts won’t consider them either.
- Result: A constitutional paradox where corporate interests supersede local democracy in the name of “innovation.”
2. The Suppression of Non-Thermal Data
Scientists who publish findings on non-thermal biological effects often struggle for funding or face industry-led public relations campaigns that brand them alarmist. This chilling effect can slow the accumulation of peer-reviewed literature necessary to sway policy.
3. International Lag
While some European nations and smaller research centers globally explore the complexities of non-thermal RF effects, the U.S. lags behind. In a tragic twist, Americans trust the FDA or FCC to enforce safe standards, but those agencies rely on decades-old, “thermal-only” assumptions.
XII. The Path Forward: Restoring Research, Updating Guidelines, Repealing Section 704
Here is a roadmap if we are to take President Trump’s words at face value—“We’re getting rid of all of the cancer …”—and truly address what many see as the real “cancer” in our policy infrastructure:
- Restore NTP Funding
- Why: The program was close to clarifying how RF radiation may cause tumors. Cutting off funding is scientifically negligent.
- Goal: Complete long-term research, replicate findings, and refine our understanding of thresholds for harm.
- Overhaul FCC Guidelines
- Why: Thermal-only models ignore decades of data on non-thermal effects.
- Goal: Enforce new exposure limits reflecting modern usage patterns, diverse frequencies (2G through 5G and beyond), and vulnerabilities of children.
- Amend or Repeal Section 704
- Why: This law muzzles local governments from even discussing health-based objections, undermining the Constitution.
- Goal: Restore local autonomy, allow courts to hear modern scientific evidence, and reinvigorate democratic processes.
- Enforce Public Law 90-602
- Why: The FDA must fulfill its legal mandate to minimize unnecessary electronic product radiation.
- Goal: Resume and expand research on RF’s carcinogenic potential, provide transparent public updates, and hold industry accountable for safe product design.
- Combat Regulatory Capture
- Why: Industry interests have swayed the FCC in the past, weakening guidelines and public trust.
- Goal: Impose strict conflict-of-interest rules, demand scientific transparency, and de-politicize leadership appointments.
- Public Advocacy and Education
- Why: Too many remain unaware of Section 704’s existence or the data on non-thermal RF effects.
- Goal: Grassroots campaigns to inform neighbors, city councils, and state legislators, fueling broader legislative reforms.
XIII. Personal Measures: Protecting Yourself While the System Catches Up
While large-scale change is ideal, individuals can take practical steps:
- Use Li-Fi or wired connections instead of Wi-Fi when possible.
- Avoid sleeping with phones near your head or in contact with your body.
- Teach children to text instead of making long calls, and to store devices outside their bedrooms.
- Limit your screen time and encourage periodic “digital detoxes.”
No measure is foolproof, but collective small changes can reduce exposure while pressuring authorities to do better.
XIV. Reflections on Democracy, Health, and the Unanswered Call
“For nearly three decades, a single provision within the Telecommunications Act—Section 704—has quietly stripped Americans of their God-given freedoms.”
This is not hyperbole. Section 704 truly censors local discourse on a pressing health issue. Meanwhile, the FCC’s reliance on outmoded guidelines leaves the door wide open to non-thermal effects that go unexamined or unaddressed.
Why do we allow it? In an age of 24/7 outrage over trivial matters, the silence around something as critical as electromagnetic radiation safety is astonishing. If the impetus to fix this cannot come from within the federal government, perhaps it will come from:
- Parents concerned about the tower next to an elementary school.
- Communities outraged by the inability to challenge corporate expansions on legitimate health grounds.
- A citizenry that recalls we are supposed to be governed by informed consent and the Constitution.
America has triumphed over public health crises before—like the smoking epidemic—once conclusive data was inescapable and political will mustered. If President Trump or any national leader truly wants to “undo” the lethal legacy left by prior administrations, they would do well to champion this cause as a matter of moral duty and constitutional fidelity.
A Call to Conscience and Action
President Donald Trump’s words about “removing the cancer” from the previous administration can be taken metaphorically or literally. In the context of NTP research cancellations, outdated FCC guidelines, and Section 704’s stranglehold on local democracy, it resonates as a clarion call to address an authentic threat to public health and constitutional rights.
Are we, as a nation, brave enough to:
- Restore the NTP’s cancer research that found unsettling evidence of radiation-linked tumors?
- Update the FCC’s 1996 safety guidelines to account for modern science on non-thermal effects?
- Repeal or at least amend Section 704 to respect local autonomy and reflect the Tenth Amendment’s original intent?
- Uphold Public Law 90-602 by compelling the FDA to fulfill its duty on wireless radiation oversight?
History will judge our willingness to confront inconvenient truths. Perhaps the “real cancer” is the synergy of industry capture, government inaction, and legal silencing. We must break that cycle. Only then can we, with integrity, declare victory over both the bureaucratic and biological cancers that threaten American lives.
Final Action Points:
- Write or Call Your Representatives
- Demand that they support legislation to repeal or revise Section 704.
- Urge them to push the FCC to adopt modern, science-based standards.
- Stay Informed and Spread Awareness
- Share reputable research from the NTP, the Ramazzini Institute, and the BioInitiative Report.
- Challenge the notion that “if it doesn’t heat, it can’t hurt.”
- Advocate for Local Control
- Lobby city councils to pass resolutions supporting a repeal of Section 704 and calling for updated FCC guidelines.
- Document tower siting controversies and keep a record of parents’ and teachers’ concerns.
- Practice Safer Tech Use
- Use headphones or speakerphone, store devices away from your body, and turn them off when not in use—especially near children.
- Recognize that individual decisions, while small, can cumulatively reduce exposure.
By taking these steps, you participate in a larger, necessary movement—one that merges scientific rigor with constitutional preservation. The stakes could not be higher: this is about protecting the health of present and future generations, defending local autonomy, and ensuring the American legal system works for the people, not against them.
The final verdict? If we, as a society, remain silent, we sign away both the pursuit of truth in cancer prevention and the local freedoms our founders sought to protect. The choice is ours to make—and the time to make it is now.
Sources & Further Reading
- National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings on RF radiation and cancer:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html - Ramazzini Institute near-field/far-field research
- BioInitiative Report:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/ - TheraBionic and tumor treating fields (TTF) FDA documentation
- Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-104)
- Public Law 90-602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968)
- U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) 2021 ruling on FCC guidelines