On January 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed it will launch a new study on cellphone radiation and health effects—and, at the same time, acknowledged that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “removed webpages with old conclusions” about cellphone radiation to make room for fresh research identifying knowledge gaps, including those tied to emerging technologies. ()

This is not a minor website cleanup. It is a public signal that the era of hard-edged, closed-case messaging is no longer politically or scientifically sustainable—especially after the federal courts already found that the FCC’s defense of its legacy RF framework was legally inadequate in key respects. ()

1) What happened on January 15, 2026

Reuters reported that HHS will launch a study on cellphone radiation, and quoted an HHS spokesperson saying the FDA removed webpages with “old conclusions” while HHS undertakes research aimed at identifying knowledge gaps, including on new technologies. ()

Reuters also reported that the study was directed by President Trump’s MAHA Commission in its strategy report. ()

At the same time, Reuters noted that some FDA and CDC pages still state there is no credible evidence pointing to health problems from cellphone radiation—meaning the federal posture is not yet unified, but it is clearly shifting. ()

2) The key change on FDA.gov: from sweeping conclusions to statutory duties

Today, the FDA’s “Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?” URL resolves to a “Cell Phones” page that leads with the agency’s responsibilities “under the law,” including:

• “Consulting with other federal agencies” on testing and evaluating electronic product radiation, and

• “Collecting, analyzing, and making available scientific information on the nature and extent of the hazards and control of electronic product radiation.” ()

That second bullet is the tell. It reads like a plain-language restatement of the core mission Congress embedded in Public Law 90-602 (Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968): a continuing federal obligation to address hazards and control of electronic product radiation, not a one-time declaration that “everything is fine.” ()

Yes, the page still contains short “weight of evidence” lines—“The weight of scientific evidence has not linked…”—but the architecture changed. The top of the page is now about legal mandate and program responsibility, not about closing the book. ()

3) What the FDA used to say—verbatim—and why the reversal matters

For years, the FDA’s web language was widely quoted by industry, fact-checkers, and regulators as definitive. One of the most-circulated formulations was:

“Based on the evaluation of the currently available information, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC.” ()

The message was not merely “uncertainty remains.” The message functioned as a governmental stamp of categorical reassurance—often used downstream to defend legacy standards, dismiss public concern, and treat the question as settled.

Now, HHS itself is describing those pages as “old conclusions,” and the FDA has removed them (or rewritten them into a different structure) precisely because HHS is commissioning new work to identify gaps. ()

That is the pivot.

4) Why this is inseparable from the 2021 court remand: the “FDA said so” defense collapsed

This moment cannot be understood without the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC.

The court held that the FCC’s refusal to update its RF framework was “arbitrary and capricious” in several respects, including the agency’s failure to respond to record evidence of non-cancer harms, its inadequate handling of children and long-term exposure issues, and its failure to address environmental impacts. ()

Critically, the court addressed the FCC’s habit of pointing to FDA statements as a substitute for reasoning. The court rejected that move as insufficient—characterizing the FDA statements the FCC cited as conclusory and not an actual explanation responsive to the evidence in the record. ()

That is the heart of the accountability failure: “the FCC says the FDA says it’s fine,” while “the FDA says the FCC standards are the benchmark,” and neither provides the kind of reasoned, record-based analysis required when challenged. The court forced that circular deference into the open. ()

The January 15 shift matters because it signals that HHS leadership is no longer willing to rest on that same circular posture.

5) What “the official stance changed” actually means in practice

This is not a declaration that RF exposure is now officially labeled harmful. It is more consequential than that: it is a change in posture from categorical reassurance to active inquiry.

The federal system is now doing three things at once:

1. HHS is commissioning work framed around knowledge gaps and emerging technologies. ()

2. FDA is removing or restructuring legacy webpages described as “old conclusions.” ()

3. Some federal pages still retain “weight of evidence” language (FDA, CDC), so the message is transitional—not yet harmonized. ()

This is exactly what a government looks like when it is moving away from a locked narrative but has not yet rebuilt a coherent replacement.

6) Where RF Safe says the science and the next research program should go

RF Safe has argued for years that the “thermal-only” comfort zone is not an adequate scientific posture for modern exposure realities. The D.C. Circuit decision did not require the FCC to declare harm—but it did require a reasoned explanation that actually grapples with evidence on issues like long-term exposure, modulation/pulsation, children, and modern ubiquity of wireless devices. ()

RF Safe’s S4–Mito–Spin framework is offered as a mechanism-forward map for where research should stop hand-waving and start measuring: voltage-gated ion-channel effects, mitochondrial ROS amplification, and radical-pair/spin-dependent biochemical pathways—i.e., biologically plausible non-thermal interactions that can be tested, bounded, and either validated or falsified.

If HHS is serious about “knowledge gaps,” it should be serious about mechanisms, exposure realism, modulation, cumulative multi-source environments, and vulnerable populations.

7) The policy path RF Safe wants next: PL 90-602, Section 704, and a “Clean Ether” transition

RF Safe’s view is that January 15 is the beginning, not the finish.

• Enforce PL 90-602 as an active program, not a symbolic relic: ongoing research, public reporting, and continuous review of electronic product radiation hazards and controls. ()

• Address the Section 704 barrier (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)), which preempts state and local governments from regulating wireless facility placement based on RF environmental effects when facilities comply with FCC emissions rules—effectively locking communities out of health-based arguments so long as legacy standards remain. ()

• Mandate safer connectivity options—the “Clean Ether” direction—including Li-Fi compatibility and wired-first defaults in schools and public environments.

8) The immediate public-health implication: uncertainty is now official enough to justify precaution

While the new HHS study proceeds, the most defensible posture for the public is not panic; it is risk management. Federal consumer-protection guidance has long emphasized exposure-reduction behaviors—distance, hands-free use, shorter calls, and avoiding weak-signal conditions where phones work harder. ()

The new development is that the same federal ecosystem that previously encouraged the public to treat the question as settled is now reopening it.

That is why this is big news: not because it proves one side “won,” but because it marks the institutional end of the closed-case posture—and the beginning of a new accountability phase.

Key references (for attribution):
- Reuters coverage (via republications): https://www.investing.com/news/general-news/us-health-department-to-launch-study-on-cellphone-radiation-4450936
- FDA “Cell Phones” page: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/do-cell-phones-pose-health-hazard
- D.C. Circuit case text (Justia): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-1025/20-1025-2021-08-13.html
- PL 90-602 PDF (Congress.gov): https://www.congress.gov/90/statute/STATUTE-82/STATUTE-82-Pg1173.pdf
- Section 704 preemption discussion (DOJ OSG): https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/rancho-v-abrams-amicus-curiae-merits
- FTC 2002 press release (radiation shield scams): https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2002/02/