6G at Light Speed, Wireless Safety at a Crawl

The federal government no longer boldly states that your cellphone is safe. Read that again. In late 2025, the FDA quietly scrubbed long-standing web pages aimed to assure the public that cell phone radiation poses no harm. The significant removal came with no announcement, no press conference. The information is just gone. The same week, in what appears to be a clear pivot, the Department of Health and Human Services—now under the direction of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—announced it will launch a new study to assess the safety of cell phone radiation.

To be clear, the FDA didn’t post new findings after removing its previous stamp of approval. Instead, the agency simply removed the old webpages—the ones that told us not to worry. So, what changed? Why now, when society is more tied to its devices than ever before? And what does it mean that our federal health agencies are no longer keen to say what they used to say with such certainty? That cell phones are safe.

None of these critical inquiries is new. No indeed. For years, scientists and public health advocates have pointed to troubling studies and insufficient long-term research on the effects of non-ionizing radiation. One such organization is Children’s Health Defense, which was founded by RFK Jr., and has tracked the potential links between electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and serious health risks—including tumors, infertility, cognitive decline, and immune disruption. These concerns are absolutely not conspiracy theories. Instead, like so many other dangers thriving because of “insufficient long-term research,” they are pressing questions that have repeatedly been ignored.

An analysis by The Focal Points last year highlighted a key issue. Titled “The 5G Safety Myth: Assumed Safe, Not Proven Safe,” by Nicolas Hulscher, the examination points out a significant fact—the safety of wireless radiation has long been assumed rather than proven. Yet, the regulatory framework relied upon to assess safety primarily addresses thermal effects (heating). Opposite that—in a scenario all too familiar in the United States—non-thermal biological effects (such as oxidative stress, neurological disruption, and immune modulation) have either been understudied or excluded from risk assessments. That gap should alarm anyone paying attention, especially when exposure is constant, cumulative, and largely involuntary.

In a moment of transparency, with the recent announcement of the HHS-led study, the Trump administration appears to be doing something rare and courageous. It has acknowledged uncertainty about the safety of 5G. That fact alone gives us pause. Not because we know what the study will find, but because the government agencies that used to insist there was nothing to see are now conceding that maybe there is. While cautious for now until transparent studies are underway, this shift feels refreshing. And it matters greatly, because while the government is just beginning to study the impact of cell phone radiation, Americans are also simultaneously being forced into the next technological frontier: 6G.

Yes, 6G is fast approaching. Last month (December 2025), President Trump signed a presidential action titled “Winning the 6G Race.” The directive was framed as a matter of national security and economic supremacy. Essentially, to dominate the playing field, America must lead the world in the deployment of 6G. To be clear, the language used in the order was unmistakable. The action states that the US must “lead the world” in 6G development or risk falling behind rivals such as China. Spectrum allocation, satellite integration, AI-enhanced networks—the architecture is already being built right now. But the health questions? They’re lagging, again. Praising the president’s measures to win the global 6G race, the Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) announced:

“WIA commends President Trump for this leadership in directing executive actions to win the 6G race. This announcement includes 275 megahertz of spectrum earmarked for future commercial use, a vital first step that will drive innovation and economic growth. We also welcome the decision to launch studies of two additional critical bands: 2.7 GHz and 4 GHz. These executive actions combine scale with speed to help deliver large, contiguous blocks of mid-band spectrum to form the backbone of America’s next-generation wireless fabric.”

The difference between 6G and its predecessors is not just speed or latency. It’s saturation in the terahertz (THz) frequency range. At first glance, perhaps this non-ionizing radiation is safer, but does that mean it is safe in ultra-dense networks, as will be the case with 6G? Think about it. We are talking about smart surfaces, connected everything, and ubiquitous sensing. 6G isn’t just a better signal. It’s an absolute and complete environmental transformation. And it will be ambient, persistent, and inescapable.

As with many dangerous but highly profitable commodities, studies on THz exist, but the outcomes depend largely on who is funding the research and why. Pfizer’s deceit and manipulation of studies surrounding its deadly COVID jab is a perfect example. A 2023 study focused on the biological effects of terahertz radiation-induced injury on neural stem cells (NSCs) found that exposure to THz radiation altered gene expression in human embryonic stem cells. Another study notes that THz can disrupt proteins in living cells. On the flip side, some studies insist THz is perfectly safe. Hmm. Which is it? As humanity stands on the brink of the most significant technological shift in human history—one that the US has vowed to dominate—we must know.

But back to the fundamental question at hand: are we ready to saturate every home, every classroom, every teenager’s pocket with a new generation of radiation—before we finish asking, and get answers, on whether the current one is safe?

Seeking answers on the safety of wireless communications and demanding transparent studies is not alarmist. Instead, it is being responsible for our health and the future health of humanity. Because—and this is important—public safety is not a given when technology outpaces regulation. The federal messaging is already split. Meaning, while HHS is opening the door to deeper inquiry, the FCC continues to wave off health concerns, citing outdated standards. The World Health Organization, back in 2011, classified radiofrequency EMF as “possibly carcinogenic.” Yet somehow that nuance has remained completely lost in the rollout of every new G that followed. And now, as we sit not fully aware of the sci-fi life unfolding before us, 6G is swiftly being ushered to our doorstep.

Parents deserve better than contradictory agency stances and misleading fine print about where our future is headed. We must consider that our children—who inherently have thinner skulls and developing nervous systems—are more vulnerable to environmental exposures and endless mental noise. In other words, the invisible manipulation of the endless feeds competing for their dopamine. And for many, their proximity to these devices is near-constant, from home to schools and everywhere in between. The technology-driven future of our children is being built on invisible networks whose biological impact we still don’t fully understand.

America’s race to lead the world into 6G is not just about faster downloads. Make no mistake, it’s about control and global dominance. The rules for commerce, for surveillance, for communication, and yes, for the invisible fields that surround our bodies every waking moment, will be determined by the nation that builds the infrastructure for 6G. Think about that for a moment. There is a reason military and intelligence communities are so invested in next-gen networks. There is incredible power in this technology.

Of course, awareness of this fact raises even more pressing questions. Such as, what happens when national security priorities eclipse public health caution? What happens when the push for innovation outruns the science of safety? If the FDA’s recent quiet deletion of its declaration that cellphone radiation is safe, the upcoming HHS study on the subject, and the mounting scientific critiques tell us anything, it’s that the answers surrounding safety are not settled. And yet the race moves forward, and antennas and satellites keep going up.

It is time for a serious national conversation—not just about what 6G can do, but what it does. What does that future really look like? Because right now—as it speeds towards us—we have no idea how our lives are about to change. We must demand information not just in industry press releases, but also in communities, schools, the workplace, and at home around the dinner table, with phones nowhere in sight. Finally, parents need to be aware of how much radiation their children are absorbing now and will absorb in the future. Likewise, American citizens should know what tradeoffs are being made on their behalf.

While hopeful, the upcoming HHS study investigating 5G cannot be a stall tactic. It must be independent, rigorous, and, at the bare minimum, fully transparent. It must include pediatric considerations and reflect the lived realities of modern 24/7 wireless saturation. And, importantly, it must be released before 6G becomes a foregone conclusion—and it must include the health impacts of 6G.

I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible. It is far more powerful, faster, and smarter than the current standard. American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind. There is no reason that we should be lagging behind on………

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2019