Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has reignited the debate over cellphone use in schools, advocating for stronger bans to protect children's health as part of his "Make America Healthy Again" initiative. In a recent appearance on "Fox & Friends" on March 20, 2025, Kennedy indicated that the burgeoning reliance on smartphones poses multiple health hazards. While he acknowledged the established connection between social media and mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, he also made controversial claims about cellphones, suggesting they emit electromagnetic radiation that could cause neurological damage and even cancer.
Kennedy highlighted these concerns while citing a recent Pew Research Center survey, which found that 68 percent of American adults support classroom bans on cellphone use, with an additional 36 percent backing an all-day prohibition. Nine states, including California and Florida, have enacted various restrictions on cellphone usage in schools, and many more are reportedly considering similar measures.
Central to Kennedy's argument is his assertion that cellphones are detrimental not just to mental health but also pose physical health risks. He stated, "Cell phones produce electromagnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it's around them all day, and to cause cellular damage and even cancer.” However, the scientific community remains divided on these claims.
While numerous studies highlight the negative impact of excessive social media use on adolescents—often leading to worsening mental health—major health organizations, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the FDA, have suggested that there isn't sufficient evidence linking cellphone radiation to cancer or other serious health issues. For instance, a peer-reviewed study commissioned by the World Health Organization last year has concluded that cellphone use likely does not increase brain cancer risk, a notion reiterated by extensive reviews from both NIH and other health entities.
In his interview, Kennedy’s emphatic stance received mixed reactions. Some experts supported his push for cellphone bans in schools but criticized his justification. Ashish K. Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, pointed out that while Kennedy advocates for a sound policy, his reasoning is flawed, labelling it "wacky.”
Others have voiced their criticisms more pointedly. D.S. Gill, wife of Texas GOP Rep. Brandon Gill, tweeted her support for Kennedy, stating that his proposals are beneficial for children. Conversely, several academics and health professionals criticized his claims as unsubstantiated and disconnected from the prevailing scientific consensus on cellphone safety. Jerrold Bushberg, a clinical professor of radiation oncology at the University of California, Davis, noted, "There’s a lot of low-quality research in the literature," adding that most studies show no significant risk of cancer from cellphone use.
Kennedy’s statements echo previous misrepresentations he has made regarding health risks, including those associated with vaccines and other health interventions linked to misinformation. His history of proclamations that undermine established scientific findings draws scrutiny and skepticism from both media and academic circles. His past assertions, including claims he repeated during last year’s confirmation interview regarding the dangers of Wi-Fi radiation, further add to the doubts surrounding his credibility.
As the debate over cellphone regulations in schools continues, education officials grapple with the implications of cellphone-centric learning. Many educators express concern that minors are utilizing smartphones to distract themselves during studies effectively. Reports of students streaming content during lectures or participating in online gambling during class have surfaced, emphasizing the need for clearer policies and enforcement.
James Granger, a science teacher in Los Angeles, advocates for physically removing cellphones from students during class, highlighting a significant shift from previous informal agreements that allowed limited phone use in classrooms.
While some school leaders implement strict bans, others find middle ground solutions. For instance, in Virginia, Governor Glenn Youngkin has actively supported guidance for public schools to limit cellphone use, echoing calls for a healthier school environment by minimizing distractions.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness and potential drawbacks of cellphone restrictions must be carefully considered. Since cellphones prove essential for emergencies, some parents question whether banning them altogether may compromise student safety. This balancing act presents ongoing challenges for policymakers striving for effective regulations that consider both health outcomes and practical needs.
As the discourse evolves, Kennedy’s proposals signal a growing awareness and concern among educators and public health advocates about the pervasive influence of smartphones on today’s youth. Yet, as scientific scrutiny continues to underscore the differentiation between genuine health risks and exaggerated claims, there lies an unanswered question—for every justified concern about mental health effects, how deeply should we dig into the unfounded fears of cellphones as health threats? For now, Kennedy’s recommendations stand as a testament to the complexities involved in navigating the youth, technology, and health landscape.
