Coast Guard drops references to swastikas and nooses being ‘potentially divisive’

The U.S. Coast Guard has reversed course on a controversial policy revision regarding hate symbols, removing language that had described such symbols as “potentially divisive.” The policy adjustment, announced Thursday by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, comes amid escalating political tensions over the handling of hate symbols within the maritime service.

“The pages of superseded and outdated policy will be completely removed from the record so no press outlet, entity or elected official may misrepresent the Coast Guard to politicize their policies and lie about their position on divisive and hate symbols,” Noem stated on social media.

This latest policy revision appears to conclude a contentious back-and-forth that began last month when the Coast Guard’s planned policy changes became public. The earlier revision had characterized hate symbols like swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive” rather than explicitly prohibited. That policy stopped short of implementing a full ban, instead giving commanders discretion to remove such symbols from public view while exempting private spaces such as family housing.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Coast Guard, had previously insisted there “was never a ‘downgrade'” in policy language, despite widespread criticism.

The controversy reached Capitol Hill when Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) placed a hold on the nomination of Admiral Kevin Lunday for Coast Guard commandant. Rosen had expressed concern that Coast Guard leadership had “backtracked” on commitments regarding the prohibition of hate symbols.

Following Thursday’s announcement, Rosen lifted her hold on Lunday’s nomination. “While I continue to have reservations about the process by which this happened and the confusion created by leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, I am pleased to see that the policy now directly refers to stronger language against swastikas and nooses,” the senator stated.

Noem characterized Rosen’s actions as a “politicized holdup” that had gone on long enough, urging the Senate to confirm Lunday without further delay. “He has given nearly 39 years of distinguished service to the Coast Guard, this country, and the American people,” Noem said.

The Coast Guard itself took to social media to clarify its position, stating that it “maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward hate symbols, extremist ideology, and any conduct that undermines our core values. We prohibit the display or promotion of hate symbols in any form. Any suggestion otherwise is false.”

This incident highlights ongoing tensions in how military branches and federal agencies address issues of extremism and hate symbols within their ranks. The Coast Guard, with approximately 40,000 active-duty personnel, faces similar challenges to other military branches in maintaining cohesive units while addressing potential extremism.

The policy reversal comes at a sensitive time for military leadership across all branches, as they balance longstanding traditions of political neutrality with increasing pressure to address extremism in the ranks. A 2021 Pentagon report found that extremist activity in the military was relatively rare but remained a concern requiring continued vigilance.

For Admiral Lunday, the resolution of this policy dispute clears a significant hurdle in his path to becoming the Coast Guard’s top officer. If confirmed, he would lead a service that plays crucial roles in maritime safety, law enforcement, and national security, operating under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime and potentially transferring to the Department of Defense during wartime.

The Washington Post first reported these latest developments in what has become a notable example of how cultural and political issues can affect military policy and leadership appointments.