The Next FDA Commissioner Must Enforce Public Law 90-602 and End the Wireless Radiation Regulatory Gap

The resignation of the FDA Commissioner should not be treated as just another Washington personnel story. It is a public-health test.

The real question for the U.S. Senate is direct: will the next FDA Commissioner enforce the agency’s statutory duty to protect the public from electronic product radiation, including non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation, or will the country repeat the same pattern of silence that allowed outdated wireless safety assurances to stand for decades?

Reuters reported that FDA Commissioner Marty Makary departed in May 2026, that Kyle Diamantas would lead FDA in an acting capacity, and that former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn and former acting FDA Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir were among people under consideration for the permanent role.

That matters because this is not merely a question of who can “run FDA.” It is a question of whether the next FDA Commissioner will finally enforce the parts of FDA law that have been ignored while wireless exposure became a constant condition of modern life.

FDA is not only a drug-and-food agency. FDA’s own radiation-emitting-products materials define “electronic product radiation” to include ionizing or non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted from electronic products.

That means cell phones, cordless phones, tablets, Wi-Fi-connected devices, routers, wearables, and other radiation-emitting electronics are not someone else’s problem. They fall directly within the legal and public-health framework Congress created through Public Law 90-602.

The buried confirmation issue

The Senate has a direct role because the FDA Commissioner is confirmed with Senate advice and consent. Senators should not treat the next FDA confirmation as a routine agency-management matter. They should treat it as a statutory compliance hearing.

For years, the public has been told that wireless radiation safety is settled. FDA’s current cell-phone page still says the “weight of scientific evidence” has not linked cell-phone radiofrequency radiation with health problems, and it also says the evidence does not show danger to children and teenagers.

But in January 2026, Reuters reported that HHS would launch a study on cellphone radiation and that FDA had taken down old webpages saying cellphones are not dangerous. Reuters also reported that an HHS spokesman said FDA removed pages with old conclusions while HHS undertook work to identify knowledge gaps involving electromagnetic radiation and modern technologies.

That is the contradiction senators must confront.

If FDA removed older blanket assurances because they were outdated, then why should any nominee be allowed to keep speaking as if the question is closed? Why should Congress confirm another FDA leader without requiring a clear plan to enforce Public Law 90-602?

The law is already on the books

Public Law 90-602 was passed to protect Americans from radiation emitted by electronic products. It was not limited to ionizing radiation. It expressly includes non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.

The law’s purpose was straightforward: when electronic technologies expose the public to radiation, HHS/FDA must evaluate the risk, support research, develop standards where needed, communicate honestly with the public, and minimize unnecessary exposure.

The modern wireless environment is exactly the kind of situation this law was designed to address. Wireless exposure is now constant in homes, schools, workplaces, hospitals, cars, sidewalks, public buildings, and bedrooms. Children are exposed before they can consent. Pregnant women are exposed without individualized assessment. People with cancer histories, fertility concerns, neurological conditions, sleep disruption, implants, and electromagnetic sensitivity are given little practical accommodation.

And yet the federal response has remained trapped in an outdated thermal framework: does radiofrequency radiation heat tissue too much?

That is not enough anymore.

The FCC is not a medical agency

One of the biggest problems in wireless radiation policy is that the public is told to look to the FCC for safety.

The FCC is a communications regulator. It manages spectrum. It licenses wireless systems. It regulates communications infrastructure. It is not a medical toxicology agency, a pediatric-health agency, an oncology agency, or a reproductive-health agency.

Federal law describes the FCC’s spectrum-related role in terms of communications policy, including efficiency of spectrum use, reduced regulatory burden, competition, and service availability.

That is not the same thing as a medical risk assessment.

The FCC may enforce RF exposure limits, but HHS/FDA is where the public-health responsibility belongs. FDA itself says it shares regulatory responsibilities for cell phones with the FCC and provides scientific input and expertise on radiofrequency energy.

That means the FCC cannot be allowed to function as America’s de facto health agency while FDA stays silent.

The 2021 FCC remand changed everything

In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded the FCC’s decision to keep its old RF exposure guidelines. The court held that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for why its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of radiofrequency exposure unrelated to cancer.

The court faulted the FCC for failing to adequately address children, long-term exposure, RF pulsation or modulation, technological developments since 1996, the ubiquity of wireless devices and Wi-Fi, 5G, and environmental impacts.

That remand is still a central public-health issue.

Children’s Health Defense has now filed a new federal case seeking to force the FCC to comply with that 2021 court order. CHD’s petition asks the D.C. Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus directing FCC compliance within 90 days, and CHD has argued that the FCC has moved ahead with wireless buildout rather than completing the required review.

CHD is right to force the FCC to comply. But Congress must recognize the deeper structural problem: the FCC cannot credibly perform the medical review by itself.

The FCC can write an order. It can cite other agencies. It can regulate equipment authorization and tower deployment. But it cannot become FDA, HHS, NIH, NIEHS, NTP, oncology, pediatrics, reproductive toxicology, environmental health, RF dosimetry, and epidemiology all at once.

The court remanded the FCC because the FCC issued the 2019 decision. But the medical work needed to answer the court’s concerns belongs with HHS/FDA.

The NTP findings cannot be ignored

The scientific record has not stood still.

The National Toxicology Program says FDA nominated cell-phone radiofrequency radiation for NTP study because of widespread public use and limited knowledge about potential health effects from long-term exposure. NTP’s two-year studies found clear evidence of malignant schwannomas in the hearts of male rats, some evidence of malignant gliomas in the brains of male rats, and some evidence of adrenal-gland tumors in male rats. NTP also reported that RFR exposure was associated with increases in DNA damage in specific tissues.

NTP also explains that the purpose of the studies was to test whether RFR could cause biological effects at exposure levels that did not significantly raise the animals’ body temperature, and that the studies limited heating to less than 1°C.

That point matters. The NTP work directly challenges the assumption that the only relevant safety question is heating.

Then came the institutional retreat. NTP says its follow-up exposure system was technically challenging, resource-intensive, and designed around 2G and 3G frequencies and modulations, not newer technologies such as 4G, 4G-LTE, or 5G. NTP also says no further work with that RFR exposure system will be conducted and that NIEHS has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time.

That is exactly why Senate oversight is needed.

A statutory radiation-control mandate cannot be satisfied by finding serious biological signals, acknowledging technology has moved on, and then stepping away from the field.

The non-thermal issue can no longer be dismissed

One of the most important points senators must understand is this: the debate cannot be reduced to “RF only matters if it heats tissue.”

FDA itself approved the TheraBionic P1, a handheld radiofrequency electromagnetic-field device for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FDA’s Summary of Safety and Probable Benefit says intrabuccal delivery with the device results in systemic absorption of amplitude-modulated RF electromagnetic fields. It also states that the amount of EMF delivered to the body is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times lower than electromagnetic fields delivered by cellular phones and does not result in thermal heating in the brain or other specific organs.

This does not mean a cancer-treatment device is the same thing as a cell phone, router, cell tower, or wearable. It is not.

But it does mean FDA cannot credibly treat low-level, non-thermal, signal-specific RF biological interaction as impossible or irrelevant. FDA has already accepted non-thermal RF bioactivity as medically meaningful in a regulated device context.

That should change the entire safety conversation.

If signal structure matters in medicine, signal structure must matter in public-health risk assessment. Modulation matters. Pulse structure matters. Timing matters. Duration matters. Tissue state matters. Age matters. Pregnancy matters. Sleep matters. Chronic exposure matters.

A thermal-only framework cannot answer those questions.

The risk-assessment problem

In 2026, Ronald Melnick and Joel Moskowitz published a paper in Environmental Health applying benchmark-dose and conventional risk-assessment methods to animal cancer and reproductive data. They concluded that current FCC/ICNIRP general-public whole-body RF limits are 15- to more than 900-fold higher than levels associated with a 1-in-100,000 cancer-risk estimate, depending on exposure duration, and 8- to 24-fold higher than levels they estimate would protect male fertility.

That paper is not an FDA risk assessment.

But that is the point.

It is exactly the kind of analysis FDA should be required to evaluate publicly. FDA should either accept it, reject it, modify it, or explain why it believes a different risk-assessment model is more appropriate.

What FDA cannot do is ignore it while continuing to allow broad public reassurance language to stand.

The policy conclusion is clear: the problem is no longer lack of plausible evidence. The problem is regulatory lag.

Why reported prior FDA leaders deserve serious scrutiny

Reuters reported that former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn and former acting FDA Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir were among candidates under consideration for the permanent FDA Commissioner role.

Both have substantial credentials. Hahn is a physician and radiation oncologist who served as FDA Commissioner from December 2019 to January 2021. Giroir is a physician-scientist and pediatric critical-care specialist who served as HHS Assistant Secretary for Health and was appointed Acting FDA Commissioner in November 2019.

The issue is not whether they have impressive résumés. They do.

The issue is whether returning prior FDA/HHS leadership risks repeating the same institutional failure: treating wireless radiation health oversight as someone else’s problem.

During the period when these leaders held high office, broad public-facing assurances about cell-phone safety remained part of the federal posture. Since then, the FCC’s RF limits have been judicially remanded, NTP’s findings remain unresolved in policy, FDA has reportedly removed older blanket-safety webpages, and HHS has launched a new study to identify knowledge gaps.

That history should not be brushed aside.

Any reported candidate who has already held FDA or HHS authority should be asked a simple question: why did this issue not become a major agency priority under your prior leadership, and what would you do differently now?

Kyle Diamantas and the acting leadership question

FDA currently identifies Kyle Diamantas, J.D., as Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs. FDA’s own biography says that before becoming Acting Commissioner, Diamantas served as Deputy Commissioner for Food and led FDA’s Human Foods Program, overseeing nutrition and food-safety activities, resource allocation, risk-prioritization strategy, policy initiatives, and major response activities involving human foods.

Food safety matters. Nutrition matters. Agency management matters.

But the FDA Commissioner also inherits responsibility for radiation-emitting products and electronic product radiation. An acting or permanent commissioner cannot treat that portfolio as invisible.

The Senate should demand that any permanent nominee identify who inside FDA/HHS will lead the RF-EMF health review, what budget will support it, what timeline will govern it, and how FDA will report its findings to Congress and the FCC.

Section 704 created preemption without protection

Congress also needs to confront the local-government problem.

Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act prevents state and local governments from regulating wireless facility placement based on the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions if the facilities comply with FCC rules. That means communities are often blocked from raising RF health and environmental concerns in siting decisions.

This creates a dangerous structure.

Local governments are silenced. The FCC limits remain tied to a framework the D.C. Circuit remanded. FDA/HHS have not produced a modern, public, comprehensive RF health-risk assessment under Public Law 90-602. Meanwhile, wireless infrastructure keeps expanding.

That is preemption without protection.

If Congress blocks local governments from acting on RF health and environmental evidence, then Congress has a duty to ensure federal standards are medically current, transparent, independent, and protective.

Right now, that is exactly what must be proven.

What senators should require before confirmation

The next FDA Commissioner should not be confirmed merely because they can stabilize agency operations. The confirmation test must include Public Law 90-602.

Senators should require the nominee to commit to a written Public Law 90-602 compliance review within 90 days. That review should explain how FDA/HHS is currently carrying out its electronic product radiation duties, including research, exposure evaluation, public communication, exposure minimization, and performance-standard authority.

Senators should require an independent RF-EMF health-risk assessment using modern risk-assessment methods. That assessment must include non-thermal endpoints, chronic exposure, children, pregnancy, reproductive health, cancer, sleep, neurological effects, modulation, pulsation, and cumulative exposure.

Senators should require HHS/FDA to restore or replace the discontinued federal RF exposure research program. If NTP’s older system is no longer representative of 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, wearables, routers, tablets, and modern indoor exposure, then the answer is not to stop. The answer is to modernize.

Senators should require FDA/HHS to provide the FCC with a formal medical and toxicological analysis responsive to the 2021 D.C. Circuit remand.

Senators should require FDA to correct public-facing safety statements so they distinguish between “not proven harmful,” “proven safe,” “uncertain,” and “under active reassessment.”

Senators should require a genuinely independent technical advisory committee including RF dosimetry experts, toxicologists, pediatric specialists, reproductive-health experts, oncologists, neurologists, environmental-health scientists, biomedical-device specialists, and public representatives.

Senators should also pursue repeal or amendment of Section 704, or at minimum suspend RF-health preemption where federal exposure limits are under judicial remand or have not been updated through a current medical risk assessment.

Confirmation questions every senator should ask

Every FDA Commissioner nominee should be asked these questions on the record:

1. Do you acknowledge that HHS/FDA has statutory responsibility for electronic product radiation, including non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation?
2. Do you agree that Public Law 90-602 requires active research, evaluation, public communication, and exposure-minimization work, not passive reliance on FCC limits?
3. Will you commit to a modern FDA-led RF-EMF health-risk assessment that includes non-thermal biological interactions?
4. Will FDA publicly explain how it interprets the NTP findings of clear evidence of malignant heart schwannomas and some evidence of malignant gliomas in male rats?
5. Will you commit to restoring or replacing federal RF exposure research after NIEHS/NTP ended further RFR exposure-study plans?
6. Will FDA formally advise the FCC on children, pregnancy, long-term exposure, modulation, pulsation, 5G, wireless ubiquity, and environmental effects as required by the issues raised in the D.C. Circuit remand?
7. Will you update FDA public communications so they no longer imply certainty where the scientific record shows unresolved risk and ongoing evidence development?
8. Will you appoint qualified RF bioeffects and radiation-health experts to senior advisory roles at FDA?
9. Will you support repeal or amendment of Section 704 so local governments are not barred from considering RF health and environmental evidence?
10. Will you commit that budget constraints or shifting priorities will not be used as an excuse to ignore statutory duties?

The public message

The public should not be distracted by narrow personnel framing. This is not simply about Marty Makary leaving. It is not simply about whether Stephen Hahn, Brett Giroir, Kyle Diamantas, or any other individual can manage the agency.

This is about whether FDA will enforce the law.

The American people should not be asked to live under outdated wireless exposure assumptions while every agency points somewhere else.

The FCC points to FDA. FDA points to FCC limits. International standard-setters point to old thermal models. Local governments are preempted by Section 704. Parents are told not to worry. Schools keep installing wireless systems. Children keep carrying transmitting devices against their bodies. And the public is still waiting for a modern medical risk assessment.

That structure is unacceptable.

The bottom line

The next FDA Commissioner must not be another caretaker who treats wireless radiation as outside FDA’s core mission.

Congress assigned HHS/FDA responsibility for electronic product radiation because public health cannot be outsourced to a spectrum regulator.

The Senate should make this a confirmation test:

No nominee should be confirmed unless they commit to enforcing Public Law 90-602, modernizing RF health-risk assessment, responding to the NTP record, helping resolve the FCC remand, correcting public safety messaging, restoring federal RF research, and supporting reform of Section 704.

The question is no longer whether FDA can continue to ignore wireless radiation.

The question is whether Congress will allow it.

Wireless radiation safety can no longer be treated as somebody else’s problem.