

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Federal cell phone radiation standards are outdated and may not protect public health, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today.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Federal cell phone radiation standards are outdated and may not protect public health, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today.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) 667-6982As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said that “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
"Feel like this isn't gonna work out well," one legal expert said in response to the leaked DOJ plan.
The US Department of Justice is reportedly setting up a new program that would create a team of prosecutors who can parachute into different areas throughout the country to bring charges against protesters who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law enforcement officers.
As reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo mandates that US attorney's offices designate some of their staff members to serve on "emergency jump teams" that can surge into areas on short notice to prosecute cases.
"A senior official instructed leaders of the nation's 93 US attorney’s offices... that they have until February 6 to designate one or two assistant US attorneys," reported Bloomberg, "who’d be available for short-term surges in unspecified areas needing 'urgent assistance due to emergent or critical situations.'"
The effort to create "jump teams" of lawyers comes as the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota has been hit with a wave of resignations in the wake of the federal government's surge of federal immigration enforcement agents into the state.
According to a Monday report from the Minnesota Star Tribune, 14 lawyers at the Minnesota US Attorney's Office have either already resigned or announced their intention to resign in just the last month, an unprecedented number of departures in such a short period of time.
Bloomberg writes that the "jump team" plan "signals the Trump administration’s attempt to offset career prosecutor attrition... with a nationwide pool of reinforcements on standby."
The plan was potentially telegraphed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Saturday, when he put out a call on social media for more attorneys to come work for the Trump administration.
"If you want to combat fraud, crime and illegal immigration, reach out," Miller wrote. "Patriots needed."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, speculated on Sunday that Miller's call reflected "real internal problems" at the DOJ, and he predicted that one solution the administration could try would be to create a mobile legal strike force much like the one outlined in the leaked DOJ memo.
However, White argued that this approach would be far from a magic bullet to solve the administration's staffing woes.
"The impediments will be these: They will get dregs who will do a bad job," White wrote. "Federal prosecution is not rocket science but federal judges do have notably higher standards than state judges and if you MAGA your way around federal court you will get your ass handed to you."
Jonathan Booth, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, also predicted that the administration's strike force plan would run into some major speed bumps.
"Imagine, you're a federal prosecutor in San Diego," he wrote in a social media post. "It's sunny, warm, you have a whole set of important cases. Then suddenly 'we need you to go to Buffalo and prosecute extremely weak misdemeanor cases.' Feel like this isn't gonna work out well."
"Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed," said one congressman.
The $40 million film Melania, a biography of the first lady that was purchased by Amazon, has been panned as a "bribe disguised as a documentary," an "expensive propaganda doc," and a "journey into the void."
But despite the reviews, the tech firm has poured an unprecedented $35 million into a marketing campaign for the documentary, and one government watchdog group suggested Monday that the investment by the third-richest person in the world, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is already paying off.
Bezos welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to his Blue Origin facilities in Florida on Monday as part of Hegseth's "Arsenal of Freedom" speaking tour, which is aimed at overhauling the Pentagon's relationship with defense tech companies.
"Blue Origin is committed to supporting national security to, through, and from space," said Bezos at the event.
Speaking during Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s “Arsenal of Freedom” tour at Cape Canaveral, Jeff Bezos says U.S. national security now hinges on industrial speed, scale, and space-based capability.
READ MORE: https://t.co/cOUQii31TJ#amazon #jeffbezos #nationalnews #florida pic.twitter.com/uaFGaoMhnI
— KRCR News Channel 7 (@KRCR7) February 3, 2026
Blue Origin, Bezos' space exploration firm, has received billions of dollars in defense contracts to build technology that uses space lasers, nuclear-powered spacecraft, and a processing facility for satellites.
Hegseth said during his tour that Blue Origin is likely to do "plenty of winning" as the Pentagon hands out additional contracts.
Late last month, Amazon Web Services was also awarded a $581 million contract to support the US Air Force's Cloud One program.
Greg Williams, director of the Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information, told USA Today that on its face, Hegseth's visits to Blue Origin as well as SpaceX, the space technology firm owned by Trump administration associate and Republican megadonor Elon Musk, were not "particularly novel."
But considering Bezos' purchase and promotion of the documentary spotlighting President Donald Trump's wife, said Williams, Hegseth's hobnobbing with the tech mogul raises new questions about Bezos' desire to curry favor with the White House.
"By spending a tiny amount of money to buy the rights," said Williams, Bezos "potentially gets a much larger return."
As such, Hegseth's visit to Blue Origin called attention to a situation of "unprecedented conflict of interest," Williams added.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) summarized the apparent transaction involving the documentary rights and the government contracts: "Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed."