As the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement awaits the results of a recently announced study on cell phone radiation, the influence of Big Wireless looms large.
Last month, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed the agency is undertaking a study on the impact of electromagnetic radiation emitted by modern cell phones. This is part of President Trump’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda. However, the influence of Big Wireless corporations and friendly regulators—such as Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr—threatens to undermine efforts to revisit the science around mobile devices.
On January 15, 2026, an HHS spokesman told The Wall Street Journal that the agency was launching a study on cellphone radiation. HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon also confirmed that several webpages previously concluding cell phone radiation did not cause harm had been removed, including one from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
“The FDA removed webpages with old conclusions about cell phone radiation while HHS undertakes a study on electromagnetic radiation and health research to identify gaps in knowledge, including on new technologies, to ensure safety and efficacy,” said Nixon. “The study was directed by President Trump’s MAHA Commission in its strategy report.”
While the FDA removed some webpages, other pages on the FDA and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites continue to claim there is no credible evidence cellphone radiation causes cancer in humans.
Studies Have Reached Conflicting Conclusions
In early November 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released data that concluded there was clear evidence that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can cause brain and heart tumors in male lab rats. The $30 million study, which took more than ten years to complete, examined the effects of prolonged exposure to high levels of RFR—specifically the type of radiation emitted via 2G and 3G cellular networks.
The researchers wrote:
“There was also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were associated with exposure to RFR.”
The NTP cautioned that the results should not be applied to humans. The FDA and other government agencies declined to support the conclusions. John Bucher, PhD, a senior scientist with the NTP, said, “The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone. In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies.”
Ronald Melnick, PhD, a researcher and scientist who designed the exposure systems used in the study, disagreed with the FDA and the FCC. In an opinion piece published by The Hill, Melnick stated that, “simply claiming that conclusions about human risk cannot be drawn from animal studies runs counter to standard practices of evaluating human cancer risks by public health agencies including the U.S. EPA, NTP, IARC and even the FDA. Every chemical known to cause cancer in humans is also carcinogenic in animals when adequately tested.”
In August 2025, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a report on their efforts to build a “small-scale RFR exposure system to conduct toxicological research in rats and mice.”
The report, titled Development and Testing of a Novel Whole-body Exposure System for Investigative Studies of Radiofrequency Radiation in Rodents, found that after rats were exposed to RFR for 5 days there were no signs of DNA damage in brain cells (frontal cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum), liver, heart, or blood cells.
Researchers concluded, “the investigative studies to test the exposure system found that the
animals showed no visible response during operation of the system, and exposure to RFR for
5 days did not induce DNA damage in rats and mice.”
Outside of the US, a brand-new study published in January also found evidence lacking after attempting to replicate the conclusions of the NTP. Research teams in South Korea and Japan launched parallel experiments—using the same strain of rats, the same food, and the same protocols as the NTP. For 104 weeks they blasted 70 male rats with RFR. Additional rats had the same living conditions with no radiation.
The Korean Study found no statistically significant changes in tumor incidence or survival rates, nor any significant RF-related effects in the heart, brain, or adrenal glands.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has also studied the potential for damage to human health caused by cell phones. In 2011, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency waves as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The WHO has continued studying radiofrequency radiation (RFR) since that time, most recently in a 2025 systematic review of animal studies on wireless RFR and cancer, published in Environment International. That review concluded with “high certainty” that exposure to wireless RF radiation causes two types of cancer in animals.
This research was one of twelve systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR-MA) commissioned by the WHO on health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), published between October 2023 and May 2025.
In an October 2025 paper titled The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety, researchers are critical of the WHO’s methodology for studying the impact of RFR and EMFs. They wrote:
“Due to serious methodological flaws and weaknesses in the conduct of the reviews and MAs on health effects of RF-EMF exposure, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones and other wireless communication devices.”
However, they noted that the animal cancer systematic reviews were rated as “high certainty of evidence” for heart schwannomas and “moderate certainty of evidence” for brain gliomas. The researchers argued that the animal reviews “provided quantitative information that could be used to set exposure limits based on reducing cancer risk.”
Overall, they conclude that “serious flaws” in the reviews mean they “cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones or other wireless communication devices and should not be relied upon” for upcoming WHO studies.
The paper’s authors include Ronald Melnick, Ph.D. (retired from the U.S. National Toxicology Program and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and Joel M. Moskowitz (University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health). Moskowitz has warned about the dangers of cell phones and EMFs for nearly two decades.
When interviewed by the Wall Street Journal about the HHS study under Trump, Moskowitz said he declined to participate because he believed it would simply “kick the can down the road.” “They know it’s not going to result in very much in terms of regulatory change, because the rest of the administration is in a deregulatory mode in terms of this technology,” Moskowitz said.
Influence of Big Wireless Looms Large
While the MAHA movement—under the influence of RFK Jr.—seeks to investigate the harms associated with RFR, the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) continues to push bills and rules that would severely hinder local governments’ ability to regulate wireless telecommunication technology relating to cell phone networks. As The Last American Vagabond (TLAV) reported in December, the US House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced a package of fifteen bills that would do just that.
The passage of those bills from the committee came only days after the FCC published a new rule in the Federal Register that is also aimed at taking away power from local governments when it comes to legislating the rollout of wireless technology.
The FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), titled Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments, states that it will advance the Trump administration’s Build America Agenda by “seeking comment on reforms that would free towers and other wireless infrastructure from unlawful regulatory burdens imposed.”
The notice explicitly states that the goal is to expand wireless infrastructure “essential to this nation’s 5G leadership.” The FCC asserts that state and local regulations have resulted in “an effective prohibition of 5G wireless services.” To combat these regulations, the FCC is proposing a new rule to “supercharge the deployment, densification, and upgrading of wireless networks and, where necessary, clarify that state and local restrictions cannot unlawfully block 5G or soon, 6G deployment.”
The FCC also discusses how mobile network operators use artificial intelligence (AI) to manage the performance of their networks and asks for public comment about whether state and local regulations focused on AI are an “effective prohibition on wireless providers’ ability to provide covered service using AI technologies.” The FCC appears interested in preempting or overriding state and local AI regulations as part of their effort to advance 5G and 6G networks.
Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences, called the proposed rulemaking an “unprecedented federal power grab.”
“If these rules advance, cell towers could be automatically approved near homes and schools, even when residents, parents, and local officials overwhelmingly object,” Theodora Scarato says of the rule proposal. “Local democracy is not a barrier to deployment, it is the foundation of accountable government. Community voices should never be treated as obstacles to be removed.”
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr applauded the passing of the bills and the FCC’s rule proposal: “This package of common sense permitting reforms will help unleash additional broadband infrastructure builds in communities all across the country,” Carr stated.
Carr is a perfect example of a government official working closely with industry and maintaining relationships that clearly present conflicts of interest. Carr is credited with accelerating the 5G rollout during the first Trump administration. Prior to joining the FCC, Carr worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein, where his clients included Verizon, AT&T, Centurylink, and CTIA—The Wireless Association (formerly known as the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association).
The Wiley Rein law firm is a hotbed of activity for former government officials and industry regulars. One of its founders, Richard Wiley, is himself a former FCC chairman. According to Open Secrets, in the first four months of 2020 alone, the Wiley Rein law firm was retained by several telecom companies, including AT&T ($80,000), CTIA ($50,000), and Verizon ($30,000). For the past 20+ years, the firm has spent at least $2 million on lobbying for its clients. Open Secrets also shows that CTIA itself spent more than $3 million on their own lobbying efforts.
This revolving door relationship between industry and government was detailed in a 2015 exposé by investigative journalist Norm Alster for the Harvard Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, titled Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates. The report documents how the FCC—created in 1934 as an independent agency to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable—has become a captured agency, with Big Wireless executives cycling in and out of government roles, similar to other federal agencies.
Regarding the passing of the 1996 Telecom Act—the act meant to regulate the developing mobile phone and internet infrastructure—Alster writes,
“Late lobbying won the wireless industry enormous concessions from lawmakers, many of them major recipients of industry hard and soft dollar contributions. Congressional staffers who helped lobbyists write the new law did not go unrewarded. Thirteen of fifteen staffers later became lobbyists themselves.”
As part of my investigations into the dangers posed by wireless technology and 5G networks, I have had direct experience dealing with Carr. On September 30, 2019, Commissioner Carr and other FCC officials were in Houston to discuss the future of 5G. I interviewed Carr about the concerns regarding his connections with the wireless industry, as well as the implications of the “Captured Agency” report. Unfortunately, Mr. Carr had no interest in addressing these concerns. He refused to answer my questions and only stated, “We’re excited about the 5G build out and working with local leaders.”
Ultimately, Carr is simply following orders from President Donald Trump, both during his first term and now in his second administration. Trump appears to be following orders from his Big Wireless buddies.
In October 2018, Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the Commerce Department to develop a “national spectrum strategy” to prepare for the introduction of 5G wireless networks. It should also be noted that Carr contributed to the Heritage Foundation’s infamous Project 2025, writing the chapter on the FCC. Project 2025 is a massive report containing proposals by the Heritage Foundation to reshape the US government to reflect their particular brand of conservatism. While Trump has sought to distance himself from Project 2025, he appointed Russ Vought—a key architect of Project 2025—as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a position which he has served in since February 2025.
To learn more about the history of corporate collusion into research on EMFs and RFR, watch Chapter 5 of The Pyramid of Power docuseries:
