A Clash of Agencies
It’s 2025, and we’re witnessing a potential showdown between two powerful federal bodies: the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), now led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a regulatory agency long accused of ignoring the mounting evidence of non-thermal hazards from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. With Brendan Carr poised to take the helm at the FCC, public health advocates foresee a regulatory cage match—one that pits the safety concerns championed by RFK Jr. against the telecom-friendly policies that Carr has historically endorsed.
This blog post compiles an array of recent discussions, court findings, and scientific data to examine how the RFK Jr. vs. Brendan Carr debate will shape wireless policy in America. Will the FCC finally modernize its 1996 guidelines to address non-thermal effects? Or will industry interests keep the status quo intact at the expense of public health?
RFK Jr.’s Ascent: Why Wireless Radiation May Be the Real Issue
Many Americans associate RFK Jr. primarily with vaccine skepticism or environmental activism. However, over the past five years, he has devoted significant energy to exposing the risks of non-thermal RF radiation. Whether discussing corporate capture of regulatory agencies or pointing to the abrupt shutdown of key research programs like the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studies, RFK Jr. has signaled that wireless safety is a top priority.
His Primary Arguments:
- Non-thermal biological effects of RF radiation (e.g., DNA damage, oxidative stress) are being ignored by regulators.
- Regulatory Capture at agencies like the FCC has left Americans in the dark about real risks.
- Public Law 90-602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968) isn’t being enforced, given that federally funded research on RF hazards was effectively terminated after alarming findings.
Regulatory Agencies at Odds: HHS vs. FCC in 2025
As HHS Secretary, RFK Jr. wields influence over the FDA and CDC, among others, and can push for public health–centered policies. The FCC, meanwhile, oversees telecom regulations and spectrum allocation, historically offering industry-friendly guidelines that revolve around outdated thermal models.
Why Conflict Is Inevitable
- HHS Focus on Health Evidence: Likely to champion new scientific research on non-thermal risks.
- FCC Focus on Infrastructure Growth: Telecom expansion is often prioritized, sometimes at the expense of rigorous safety updates.
With Carr at the FCC and RFK Jr. at HHS, the stage is set for a policy showdown on how to manage wireless technology.
Brendan Carr’s Defense of Outdated Standards
Misleading Statements and Court Rulings
Brendan Carr penned letters defending the FCC’s 1996 guidelines, claiming that agencies like the FDA had confirmed their adequacy. However, in 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the FCC’s refusal to update these standards “arbitrary and capricious.” The court highlighted thousands of studies indicating non-thermal effects, directly contradicting Carr’s claims that the guidelines remained sufficient.
Key Assertions in Carr’s Letter
1. FDA’s Determination that Current Safety Limits are Acceptable
Carr cites Dr. Shuren of the FDA, claiming that the agency reviewed “decades of research and hundreds of studies” and found confidence in current safety limits for cell phone radiation. According to Carr, these safety limits were deemed acceptable for protecting public health.
The Reality:
- The 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling contradicted this claim. The court found that the FCC failed to provide any updated scientific evidence to justify its outdated guidelines, which were established in 1996. These guidelines focus solely on thermal effects and ignore non-thermal biological effects, such as DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disruptions to bioelectric communication.
- Despite Carr’s assertion that the FDA had reviewed and relied on a wealth of scientific data, the court found no evidence to support that such reviews led to any meaningful updates in safety guidelines. The FCC and FDA were unable to produce substantive peer-reviewed research demonstrating the adequacy of their standards.
2. Continued Review of New Scientific Data
The letter suggests that the FDA and FCC are committed to ongoing review as “new scientific data are published,” referencing the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and other sources.
The Reality:
- While Carr points to the NTP’s research as evidence of ongoing review, the NTP study itself found clear evidence of cancer (gliomas and cardiac schwannomas) from RF radiation exposure. Instead of addressing these findings, the federal government under the Biden-Harris administration cut funding for further research. This demonstrates a move away from evidence-based policymaking, rather than the active review claimed in the letter.
- Additionally, the Ramazzini Institute study, which replicated the NTP findings at lower exposure levels, further confirmed the carcinogenic potential of RF radiation. These findings have not been reflected in any updated FCC or FDA guidelines.
3. Confidence in Current Safety Standards
The letter reassures that the current safety standards, based on research, are adequate to protect public health.
The Reality:
- The FCC’s guidelines have not been updated in over 25 years, despite significant advancements in wireless technology and research on RF radiation’s biological effects.
- The court emphasized that both the FCC and FDA failed to provide any substantive justification for retaining these outdated standards. The guidelines do not account for the non-thermal effects documented in thousands of peer-reviewed studies.
Breakdown of Misleading Statements
Misleading Claim #1: “Hundreds of studies” support the safety standards.
- While hundreds of studies exist, the FCC and FDA selectively ignore evidence of non-thermal effects, focusing only on studies that support the thermal paradigm of RF safety. The court’s findings directly contradict this assertion, as no credible evidence was provided to justify the adequacy of the 1996 guidelines.
Misleading Claim #2: The FDA continues to review new data.
- The court found no evidence of proactive, meaningful review by the FDA. In fact, the halting of the NTP study underscores a lack of commitment to understanding RF radiation risks.
Misleading Claim #3: Current safety limits are protective of public health.
- The outdated guidelines do not reflect modern scientific understanding of RF radiation. By failing to account for non-thermal effects, the FCC’s standards leave the public vulnerable to potential health risks, including cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive harm.
The Truth and Reality
- Court Findings:
- The 2021 court ruling invalidated the FCC’s claim that their safety guidelines adequately protect public health. The court noted that the FCC failed to address a substantial body of evidence pointing to non-thermal biological effects.
- Stalled Research:
- Instead of acting on the NTP’s alarming findings, the federal government halted further research. This move contradicts the letter’s assurance of ongoing scientific review.
- Regulatory Capture:
- The telecommunications industry has had significant influence over regulatory agencies like the FCC. This has resulted in a lack of accountability and failure to prioritize public health over corporate interests.
Key Contradictions in Carr’s Letters:
- Adequacy of Guidelines: Ignores evidence of biological effects below thermal thresholds.
- Ignored Court Ruling: The 2021 ruling mandated a re-examination of RF safety, but Carr continued asserting the 1996 guidelines were fine.
- Silencing of NTP Findings: Carr touts ongoing scientific review while the government shut down the NTP’s RF research.
Public Law 90-602 and NTP Research Cuts
Carr’s letters reference the FDA’s “commitment” to reviewing new data, yet the Biden administration ended funding for the NTP studies. This move effectively prevents further federal research into RF’s cancer risks, contradicting Carr’s assurances of an ongoing review process.
Result: A “commitment to review” in words only, while critical programs are quietly dismantled.
RFK Jr.’s Landmark Legal Battles
The 2021 FCC Lawsuit
One of RFK Jr.’s defining moments in this debate came from a 2021 lawsuit against the FCC, where the court found the agency had failed to provide updated scientific rationales for its 1996 guidelines. This was a major victory for RFK Jr. and allied organizations like the Environmental Health Trust.
Court’s Conclusion:
- The FCC acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” by ignoring thousands of studies on non-thermal effects.
- An official re-examination of safety limits was mandated, but not fully acted upon.
“Non-Thermal” Effects and the Court-Ordered Review
Researchers increasingly warn about hazards below the heating threshold. These include:
- DNA strand breaks
- Increased oxidative stress
- Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB) permeability
By winning the case, RFK Jr. highlighted the need for a thorough, peer-reviewed look at these phenomena. Brendan Carr’s defense of thermal-only limits flies in the face of this court directive.
The Scientific Evidence: Why These Old Guidelines Fail
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Findings
The NTP, a $30 million federally funded study, discovered “clear evidence” linking RF exposure to:
- Glioblastomas—an aggressive brain cancer.
- Cardiac Schwannomas—tumors in the heart.
These results challenge any assertion that current safety standards are adequate. The NTP findings noted non-thermal impacts like DNA damage and oxidative stress at exposures below thresholds required for tissue heating.
Ramazzini Institute and Global Comparisons
The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated NTP findings at even lower exposures, akin to real-life scenarios near cell towers. Also, countries like France and Italy have enacted stricter regulations or recalled phones exceeding certain limits, underscoring the U.S. reliance on outdated thermal-centric guidelines.
Glioblastomas, Cardiac Schwannomas, and BBB Permeability
RFK Jr. repeatedly points out research indicating that RF can penetrate tissues, disrupt the blood-brain barrier, and potentially facilitate the entry of toxins—raising neurological health concerns. With non-thermal pathways now documented in multiple studies, the entire rationale behind 1996 guidelines fails to capture present-day scientific consensus.
Regulatory Capture: FCC, FDA, and Telecom Interests
Many of RFK Jr.’s critiques focus on regulatory capture, where agencies serve corporate agendas at the expense of public welfare. The FCC has been accused of adopting industry-sponsored studies while dismissing or ignoring conflicting science. Similarly, the FDA should enforce Public Law 90-602 by continuing electronic product radiation research, but critics argue it’s done too little, especially concerning cell phone radiation.
A Potential Telecom Crash: When Emissions Controls Meet the Wireless World
Lessons from Automotive Emissions
RFK Jr. and others draw parallels between the telecom industry’s looming crisis and the auto industry in the 1970s, when emissions standards suddenly forced manufacturers to adopt catalytic converters, EGR valves, and other pollution-control devices. If new RF guidelines take effect, millions of towers could be deemed non-compliant, leading to relocation costs, upgrades, or lawsuits.
Liability and Stock Market Impacts
Insurance companies already hesitate to cover RF-related claims. If major studies confirm non-thermal dangers, telecom giants might see stock values plummet under the weight of class-action lawsuits and newly enforced emission limits. This could overshadow the dot-com crash of 2001, especially considering modern reliance on wireless systems.
RFK Jr. at HHS: Practical Steps for Reform
Restarting Federal Research
With RFK Jr. at HHS, expect renewed calls to revive halted NTP research and collaborate with independent bodies like universities or the Ramazzini Institute. This will help fill gaps left by the abrupt termination of critical programs under the Biden administration.
Updating FCC’s 1996 Guidelines
HHS can pressure the FCC to:
- Acknowledge Non-Thermal Risks: Officially incorporate these findings into policy.
- Reduce Exposure Limits: Lower permissible levels near schools, homes, and workplaces.
- Mandate Public Warnings: In line with how some European countries require SAR labeling or usage advisories.
Addressing Vulnerable Populations: Children, EHS, and Beyond
RFK Jr. advocates for protective measures, especially around children whose thinner skulls and developing brains amplify risk. Additionally, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) might gain formal acknowledgment, prompting guidelines for workplaces and public spaces to accommodate affected individuals.
Innovation Unleashed: Li-Fi, Beamforming, and Satellite Broadband
Li-Fi: Light Fidelity Instead of Radio Waves
If new regulations impose stricter microwave emission limits, Li-Fi—data transmission via light—could become a major contender. Already tested in some environments, Li-Fi offers:
- Ultra-Fast Speeds
- Near-Zero RF Emissions
- Enhanced Security (light doesn’t penetrate walls as easily)
Beamforming and Interferometry
Even microwave-based technology can reduce overall “spray” of radiation via directional beamforming—focusing signals only where needed—lowering ambient exposure. This might become mandated to meet new, lower, non-thermal thresholds.
Satellite-Based Networks
With Starlink, OneWeb, and Project Kuiper deploying low-Earth orbit (LEO) constellations, direct satellite-to-device connectivity may reduce the reliance on ground towers—assuming concerns around space debris and high-altitude RF emissions are also managed responsibly.
The Silent Strategy: Why Is RFK Jr. Not Opposing Carr Out Loud?
Some of RFK Jr.’s supporters are puzzled by his apparent silence over Brendan Carr’s nomination to head the FCC. Speculation abounds that he may be focusing on a longer-term game plan—waiting for confirmation to fully leverage HHS’s authority and then collaborating (or clashing) with the FCC from a position of power. Others suspect he wants to avoid an upfront fight in order to push more comprehensive reforms later.
Public Awareness and Grassroots Movements
Independent groups like the Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense have been the leading voices in educating the public on RF radiation risks. As the potential for big policy changes looms, grassroots support—parents concerned about towers near schools, EHS sufferers, environmental advocates—could provide critical momentum.
Actionable Steps:
- Organize local town halls about tower placements.
- Demand labeling or usage warnings from device manufacturers.
- Pressure lawmakers to question FCC nominees on non-thermal research.
Critiques, Counterarguments, and Science vs. Policy Dilemmas
Industry Position: Many telecom companies argue there’s “no consensus” and that thermal guidelines suffice. They point to large-scale rollouts of 5G without catastrophic health outcomes as evidence.
Public Health Advocates: Argue that waiting for a definitive “body count” is unethical, akin to how leaded gasoline or smoking controversies played out—science lagged behind corporate narratives, and it took years to enact protective measures.
Scientific Complexity: Some experts admit it’s tricky to isolate RF exposure as a single cause of cancer or neurological disorders, but the precautionary principle states that uncertain dangers—especially with consistent red flags—warrant caution.
A Coming Regulatory Cage Match?
With RFK Jr. now confirmed as HHS Secretary and Brendan Carr poised for a top role at the FCC, we appear headed for a regulatory showdown. Carr’s unwavering defense of 1996-era thermal-only guidelines conflicts with a tsunami of science on non-thermal effects, plus a 2021 court ruling demanding updated standards.
For the American public—especially children, pregnant women, and those with EHS—this battle could redefine how safe (or unsafe) our daily digital environments are. Beyond health, the telecom industry’s future may hinge on how these conflicting visions play out. If new guidelines force major infrastructure changes, we may see unprecedented innovation or a meltdown akin to the telecom crash of 2001, or both.
Call to Action: Shaping the Wireless Future Responsibly
-
Stay Informed
Track announcements from the FCC, HHS, and advocacy groups like Environmental Health Trust. Knowledge is power in dissecting industry claims vs. independent research. -
Engage Publicly
- Write to your representatives about non-thermal RF effects.
- Ask school boards to consider wired or Li-Fi solutions.
- Support local movements against placing towers near schools or daycare centers without thorough safety checks.
-
Adopt Safer Habits
- Use speakerphone or wired headsets.
- Turn off Wi-Fi routers at night or when not needed.
- Encourage children to limit device usage on laps or near their heads.
-
Challenge Regulatory Capture
If agencies appear to serve corporate agendas, demand transparency. Insist on public comment periods for updated guidelines and hold officials accountable for ignoring credible scientific research. -
Embrace Innovation
Support or invest in safer solutions: Li-Fi, advanced beamforming, satellite broadband, or novel low-power wireless protocols. Industry will adapt if consumers and policymakers demand it.
A Healthier Tech Future Is Possible
Like seat belts, catalytic converters, or restrictions on lead in paint, new standards for RF emissions could ultimately protect millions while spurring fresh waves of innovation. The question is whether we have the collective will—and leadership from figures like RFK Jr.—to make it happen.
Don’t wait for yet another health crisis to confirm what caution and science already suggest. Join the movement for safer wireless technology and let’s transform this regulatory cage match into a launching pad for truly secure, efficient connectivity.
