

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Alex Formuzis (202) 667.6982 or alex@ewg.org
Federal cell phone radiation standards are outdated and may not protect public health, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today. The watchdog agency noted that the Federal Communications Commission set its radio frequency energy exposure limits more than 15 years ago in the early days of cell phone technology.
The new report confirms what Environmental Working Group has been saying since 2009: The FCC's cell phone rules are based on old science and outmoded assumptions and are in serious need of an overhaul.
Federal cell phone radiation standards are outdated and may not protect public health, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today. The watchdog agency noted that the Federal Communications Commission set its radio frequency energy exposure limits more than 15 years ago in the early days of cell phone technology.
The new report confirms what Environmental Working Group has been saying since 2009: The FCC's cell phone rules are based on old science and outmoded assumptions and are in serious need of an overhaul.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its report following year-long investigation into the adequacy of the FCC's rules that was requested by Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that has oversight authority over the FCC and the telecommunications industry.
Among GAO's top findings: The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) radiofrequency (RF) energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research, and testing requirements may not reflect maximum exposures in all usage conditions. FCC set its RF energy exposure limit for mobile phones in 1996 based on recommendations from federal health and safety agencies and international organizations.
The GAO recommended that the FCC:
* Formally reassess its current RF energy exposure limit - taking into account the effects on human health, the associated costs and benefits and the opinions of relevant health and safety agencies - and revise the limit if necessary.
* Reassess whether mobile phone testing requirements correctly measure maximum RF energy exposure as cell phones are actually used, particularly when they are held against the body, and update its testing requirements as needed.
"The FCC has been wearing a blindfold for more than a decade, pretending that while cell phones were revolutionizing how we communicate, the agency didn't have to take a hard look at what this meant for its so-called safety standards," said Renee Sharp, director of Environmental Working Group's California office and senior scientist. "Finally, the FCC has been taken to task for this grave oversight, and we hope and expect it will use the GAO's findings to update its safety standards for wireless devices."
"We're thankful to Representatives Markey, Waxman and Eshoo for requesting this important report," said Jason Rano, EWG's director of government affairs. "They have all been champions of public health and the public's right to know, and the information provided in this report demonstrates the need for the FCC to review its cell phone safety standards."
FCC's current standards - which have never been updated - allow 20 times more radiation to reach the head than the body as a whole, do not account for the possible risks to children's developing brains and smaller bodies, and consider only the impact of short-term cell phone use, not frequent calling over decades. On June 15, the FCC announced that it was considering conducting the first official review of its standards since they were originally developed, but no final decision has been made.
"In 1996, tweens and teens were not consumers of wireless technology, but today it's hard to find a group of young people who aren't armed with the latest mobile device," said Sharp. "Those populations who are now talking and texting daily were not considered by the FCC when it devised its safety standards fifteen years ago."
The GAO released its report just days before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear a groundbreaking cell phone case. At issue is whether the city of San Francisco can require cell phone vendors to provide consumers with a one-page fact sheet about potential health risks of cell phone radiation and advice on safer cell phone use. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, the cell phone industry's leading trade group, is suing the city to prevent the law, enacted in July 2011, from being enforced. The case is scheduled to be heard on Aug. 9.
In May of last year, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use.
In addition to calling for updated federal standards, EWG has lobbied for greater disclosure of cell phone radiation exposure to consumers, supported right-to-know initiatives and recommended simple steps that cell phone users can take to decrease their exposure, such as using a headset and texting rather than talking.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982“Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement, and loss—especially for those least responsible,” said UN Secretary General António Guterres on Thursday. “This is moral failure—and deadly negligence.”
As world leaders gathered in Brazil for this year's global summit on the accelerating climate crisis this week, many took note of the absence of US President Donald Trump.
This year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) summit comes on the tenth anniversary of the Paris Climate agreement, in which nations committed to adopting policies intended to keep global temperature increases below the threshold of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, considered a tipping point at which many of the worst ravages of climate change will become irreversible.
Ten years later, progress has fallen far short of the mark, with leaders scrambling to keep the deal’s goals intact—an aim that is likely untenable without the cooperation of the US, the globe’s largest historical emitter of carbon.
America’s president has not only once again pulled the US out of the Paris agreement, but also sought to turn climate denial into public policy and spent his term in office thus far grinding American investment in renewable energy to a halt—actions viewed as extraordinary abdications of responsibility at a time when the globe is ever more rapidly approaching the point of no return for warming.
Fresh on climate advocates' minds are Trump’s comments at the UN General Assembly in September, when he described climate change as the world’s “greatest con job.”
On Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization found that greenhouse gas emissions had reached a record high. Meanwhile, 2025 is on track to be the third hottest year on record, behind only 2024 and 2023.
“Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement, and loss—especially for those least responsible," said UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday. "This is moral failure—and deadly negligence."
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has emerged as one of the world's leading climate defenders from the heart of the Amazon rainforest, began the conference by delivering an indirect but unmistakable shot at Trump. He denounced the "extremist forces that fabricate fake news and are condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming."
Other Latin American leaders were more direct. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump recently hit with sanctions and threatened with military action, denounced the US president as "against humanity," as evidenced by "his absence" at the conference.
"The president of the United States at the latest United Nations General Assembly said the climate crisis does not exist," added Chilean President Gabriel Boric. "That is a lie."
In Trump's stead, over 100 other state and local figures from US politics have traveled to Brazil to take part in the conference: Among them are California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers.
Another attendee is Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, chair of the Climate Mayors network, who recently applauded Tuesday night’s elections in the US. More than 40 candidates associated with the network came out victorious, as well as the self-described ecosocialist New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.
“Our climate mayors did very well on the ballot,” Gallego said to applause at a local leaders forum for COP30. “We want to send this message from the US.”
But despite the US delegation, even with officials from the Trump administration absent, climate campaigners fear the White House may still seek to sabotage the conference from afar. Last month, the administration did just that when it used the threat of tariffs to strong-arm countries into killing what would have been a global-first carbon fee on shipping.
Even without Trump present, COP30 is crawling with fossil fuel lobbyists seeking to stymie progress. A report released Friday from the climate advocacy group Kick Big Polluters Out found that over 5,350 fossil fuel lobbyists have attended UN climate negotiations over the past four years. The corporations they represent are responsible for more than 60% of global emissions.
“These companies have defended their fossil interests by watering down climate action for years," said Fiona Hauke of the German environmental group Urgewald. "As we head towards COP30, we demand transparency and accountability: Keep polluters out of climate talks and make them pay for a just energy transition.”
"A military sending armed soldiers into US cities to fight 'the enemy within' at a president's behest is not one to embolden with more funding."
Nearly two dozen advocacy groups warned Thursday that a Republican-led effort to give President Donald Trump an additional $32 billion in Pentagon funding for the coming fiscal year would enable his administration to accelerate its lawless use of the military, both in US communities and overseas.
"We are seeing the administration intensify its National Guard domestic deployments, an authoritarian move that is plainly designed to clamp down on dissent and chill Americans' First Amendment expression," Public Citizen, Demand Progress, Peace Action, and other organizations wrote in a letter to the top Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees as lawmakers in both chambers work to hash out differences between their versions of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
"A military sending armed soldiers into US cities to fight 'the enemy within' at a president's behest is not one to embolden with more funding," the groups added.
The letter also notes that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are "unconstitutionally and dangerously" using the US military "to carry out assassinations in the Caribbean."
"Providing additional funding to the Pentagon at such a time would be seen as an implicit endorsement of this reckless activity," the groups wrote.
"Hegseth is a key enabler of Trump's authoritarianism, as Pentagon resources are being used in reckless and illegal actions domestically and internationally."
The House version of the NDAA, approved in September in a mostly party-line vote, would authorize $892.6 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year.
But the Senate-passed version would increase that top line number by just over $32 billion, even as the Pentagon fails to pass an independent audit and remains rife with fraud and abuse.
In a separate letter also backed by Public Citizen, a coalition of advocacy groups called the proposed $32 billion increase in the Senate legislation "fiscally ill-advised and strategically counterproductive."
"Before this year's increases," the groups observed, "the Pentagon budget had already grown by nearly 50% adjusted for inflation since the turn of the 21st Century."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement that "Hegseth is a key enabler of Trump's authoritarianism, as Pentagon resources are being used in reckless and illegal actions domestically and internationally."
"Under his leadership, the Pentagon is further entrenching military policing in Americans' daily lives via a National Guard 'rapid response force' and actively attacking international vessels without congressional authorization," said Weissman. "Lavishing Hegseth's Pentagon with $32 billion in extra spending will only fuel Trump's authoritarian agenda. It is particularly galling to consider in the wake of dire cuts to the social safety net imposed by the tax and budget reconciliation bill and Trump administration unilateral action."
"Mike Johnson's callousness is appalling," said one healthcare campaigner.
Americans are skipping meals and falling behind on bills, lines at food banks are expanding, and millions are watching with alarm as their health insurance premiums skyrocket, but Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday that he's prepared to "let this process play out" rather than negotiate with Democrats to end the longest government shutdown in US history.
During a news conference, Johnson (R-La.) said he would not agree to hold a vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies in exchange for Democratic votes to end the shutdown.
"I am not promising anybody anything," said Johnson, confirming Democrats' warnings that the GOP can't be trusted to uphold what would amount to a pinkie promise for an ACA vote.
"I am going to let this process play out," he added.
Johnson's remarks drew swift backlash. Leslie Dach, chair of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "as Trump-GOP policies devastate Americans from coast to coast, and congressional Republicans continue the longest government shutdown in history, Mike Johnson's callousness is appalling."
"He won't even agree to allow a vote in the House to restore the healthcare tax credits that Republicans stripped away from millions of Americans," said Dach. "He'd rather more small businesses be financially annihilated, more hospitals vanish out of thin air, and more Americans—including in his own district—empty out their life savings just to go to a doctor."
"It's unconscionable," Dach added, "and voters, as they demonstrated in the November 4th bellwether elections across the nation, will hold the GOP to account for playing with their lives and selling out the American people—all so Republicans can provide more tax breaks to their billionaire buddies."
On Friday, as shutdown chaos and pain continues to spread nationwide, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is planning to call a vote on a plan that would temporarily fund the government and advance several appropriations bills. The proposal also includes a promise of a future vote on the ACA tax credits, which expire at the end of the year.
It's unlikely that Senate Democrats, who convened for a lengthy meeting Thursday afternoon, will accept the proposal, as they've demanded more concrete concessions from Republicans on the ACA subsidies. Republicans need at least seven Democratic senators to break ranks for the bill to pass.
Politico reported Friday that "Senate Democrats are splintered over how much stock to put into Thune's commitment, given the South Dakota Republican has also said he cannot guarantee an outcome of any such vote."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told the outlet that Democrats shouldn't "proceed without knowing that these healthcare premiums are not going to go up by 200%."