Why is the FCC moving to de-regulate the telecoms industry instead of safeguarding people from EMF/RF radiation?

The FCC Public Notice DA 25-219 is framed as a deregulatory initiative in response to the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders aiming to “unleash prosperity” in the USA through reduced bureaucracy. However, from a human and environmental protection perspective, the notice is missing several critical safeguards and considerations that would ensure technology deployment does not come at the cost of public health, environmental integrity, or long-term societal wellbeing.

🧍‍♂️ Human Health Protections: What’s Missing

1. No mention of EMF/RF radiation exposure

   • There's zero reference to the potential health effects of increased exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), including from 5G infrastructure — a key concern raised by thousands of researchers and advocacy groups.

   • There's no mention of biological effects on children, pregnant women, people with pace-makers, or people with EMF sensitivities — groups who may require additional protection.

2. Lack of reference to independent health studies or precautionary principles

   • The document focuses on cost-benefit and economic competition, but omits any guidance for weighing non-financial health outcomes, public health uncertainties, and safety.

   • No reference to biomedical ethics and bio-surveillance regarding increased exposure to new or expanded wireless technologies.

   • No reference to informed consent regarding increased exposure to new or expanded wireless technologies.

3. Absence of community-level impact assessment

   • Local communities may be disproportionately affected by the placement of infrastructure like cell towers. The notice contains no requirement for environmental impact statements or public health impact assessments prior to deregulation.

     

     WCH Policy Brief on Effects of Unregulated Digitalization

🌱 Environmental Protections: What’s Missing

1. No Environmental Review or Safeguard Framework

   • There is no reference to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other environmental review protocols.

   • Infrastructure buildouts often involve land clearing, increased power use, and long-term ecological impacts — none of which are considered here.

2. Zero focus on sustainability, energy consumption and waste

   • The notice does not discuss how telecom development intersects with climate agenda, energy efficiency, or e-waste reduction.

   • No mention of using technology with discernment to benefit environmental rehabilitation and nature and minimise environmental degradation.

3. No biodiversity or wildlife consideration

   • Wireless networks and tower infrastructure have been linked to disruptions in bird and insect navigation and other ecosystem impacts.

   • The document does not propose any oversight to mitigate these risks.

🧠 Ethical & Social Oversights

1. Public input is procedural, not substantive

   • The notice encourages public comment but does not indicate how community voices or human rights considerations will be weighted in decisions.

2. No accountability mechanisms

   • The process is framed almost entirely from an economic deregulation lens, without introducing measures for transparency, independent oversight, or whistleblower protections.

✅ Suggestions for Improvement

To align with precautionary and protective principles, the FCC should:

• Require independent health and environmental impact assessments before removing any rules related to technology deployment.

• Include public health advocates, environmental scientists, and community leaders in decision-making processes.

• Apply the Precautionary Principle in cases where data is incomplete or emerging risks exist (especially EMFs and long-term digital infrastructure effects).

888 comments have been submitted…

There have been 888 comments submitted in response to the FCC Public Notice, with many from the telecoms industry giants eager to profit further from de-regulation, e.g. Verizon, but also responses from health advocacy organisations and many members of the public.

Here is an example of individual’s perspective, highlighting the frustration of everyday people who are not heard or properly engaged on matters that directly affect their health, wellbeing and self-determination:

To Whom it May Concern, We do not want, or need any more cell phone towers in our area. We all have great coverage and do not want to risk our health just to make the phones companies richer. And this has already been decided! The FCC must comply with the 2021 court remand order by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which requires the FCC to review its RF radiation exposure limits in light of the 11,000 pages of scientific, peer-reviewed studies showing biological effects within its limits. The court ordered the FCC to examine the effects of long-term exposure to humans and the environment, particularly to children. When will the FCC comply with this court order? The MAHA Commission Executive Order requires the study of potential contributing causes of childhood chronic disease, including from "electromagnetic radiation." The FCC's actions also need to be consistent with that Executive Order. Sincerely, Vicki Irvine

We do not consent to de-regulation

De-regulation in the USA affects the health and sovereignty of people all around the world, not only in the USA. The World Council for Health submitted a letter and documents in response. You can access it here:

You can browse other submissions here.

EMF Protection Strategies

Discover what you need to know about 5G, including how to help protect yourself and your family. Download our free handy guide to help protect from electrosmog and check out our Shop for EMF Protection products.

Shop Our Health Guides

NEW! Did you know we have a Health Guide Series Bundle?
It includes three comprehensive PDF guides with over 50+ pages to unlock the secrets to natural healing and wellness, with an exclusive discount when you buy two or three together.