Coast Guard reverses course on policy to call swastikas and nooses ‘potentially divisive’

The U.S. Coast Guard abruptly reversed course Thursday night, releasing a firm policy banning hate symbols just hours after media reports revealed the agency had planned to describe items like swastikas and nooses as merely “potentially divisive.”

“Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited,” declares the new policy, explicitly stating that this category includes “a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups.”

In an accompanying press release, the Coast Guard emphasized this was “not an updated policy but a new policy to combat any misinformation and double down that the U.S. Coast Guard forbids these symbols.”

The swift change came after The Washington Post and other media outlets reported that the Coast Guard had drafted a policy earlier in November that softened language around these symbols. That earlier version had replaced terminology used since 2019 that described swastikas and nooses as “widely identified with oppression or hatred” and classified their display as “a potential hate incident.”

The latest policy takes a stronger stance than the earlier November draft, unequivocally prohibiting all divisive or hate symbols from Coast Guard facilities. The previous version had not explicitly banned such symbols and suggested commanders could take steps to remove them from public view while allowing them in private spaces outside of public view, such as family housing.

Both policies maintain the long-standing prohibition on publicly displaying Confederate flags except in specific contexts such as educational or historical settings.

The policy change sparked immediate criticism from lawmakers. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) expressed concern that the initial revision “rolls back important protections against bigotry and could allow for horrifically hateful symbols like swastikas and nooses to be inexplicably permitted to be displayed.”

“At a time when antisemitism is rising in the United States and around the world, relaxing policies aimed at fighting hate crimes not only sends the wrong message to the men and women of our Coast Guard, but it puts their safety at risk,” Rosen added.

Before the late-night policy reversal, Admiral Kevin Lunday, acting commandant of the Coast Guard, had defended the earlier version, calling it “categorically false” to suggest any prohibitions had been rolled back.

“These symbols have been and remain prohibited in the Coast Guard per policy,” Lunday stated. “Any display, use or promotion of such symbols, as always, will be thoroughly investigated and severely punished.”

The leadership shuffle at the Coast Guard may be contributing to the policy turbulence. Lunday’s predecessor, Admiral Linda Fagan, was dismissed on President Donald Trump’s first day in office. Trump officials later claimed she was fired partly for placing “excessive focus” on diversity and inclusion efforts that diverted “resources and attention from operational imperatives.”

While the newest policy explicitly prohibits hate symbols, it remains silent on whether Coast Guard personnel will be able to report “hate incidents” as they could under the 2019 policy. The November draft had explicitly removed this terminology, instead directing that such conduct would be treated as “a report of harassment in cases with an identified aggrieved individual.”

The Coast Guard, although under the Department of Homeland Security, is considered part of America’s armed forces and often aligns its policies with Pentagon directives. The timing of this policy shift is notable, coming less than two months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a review of all hazing, bullying, and harassment definitions across the military, arguing existing policies were “overly broad” and “jeopardizing combat readiness, mission accomplishment, and trust in the organization.”

The Pentagon has not provided details on whether this review could lead to similar changes in other military branches or when it might be completed.

The initial policy change drew sharp criticism from legal and community experts. Menachem Rosensaft, a Cornell University law professor and Jewish community leader, stated that “the swastika is the ultimate symbol of virulent hate and bigotry, and even a consideration by the Coast Guard to no longer classify it as such would be equivalent to dismissing the Ku Klux Klan’s burning crosses and hoods as merely ‘potentially divisive.'”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer condemned the initial move as “disgusting,” calling it “more encouragement from the Republicans of extremism.”

The Coast Guard’s rapid policy reversal highlights the sensitivity and significance of how government agencies address symbols associated with hatred and oppression, particularly amid rising concerns about extremism and discrimination.