Coast Guard Clarifies 'Hate' Policy On Nooses And Swastikas
Coast Guard Clarifies Policy On Nooses And Swastikas As Hate Symbols
The U.S. Coast Guard is pushing back aggressively against a Washington Post report that claimed the service planned to stop classifying swastikas, nooses, and other extremist imagery as hate symbols, dismissing the allegations as “categorically false.” But the rapid rollout of a new, strengthened policy released just hours after public outrage began has only intensified questions about whether the service attempted to soften its stance before being forced to reverse course.
The controversy began on Thursday when the outlet broke the news that an internal policy set to take effect December 15 would no longer consider swastikas and nooses as hate symbols but instead would reclassify them as “potentially divisive,” a shift in terminology that would allow commanders to use discretion over whether to remove them and eliminate the label “hate incident” entirely from Coast Guard policy.
According to documents obtained by the Post, the earlier draft allowed the symbols in private spaces and introduced a 45-day window to report incidents—an approach critics argued weakened protections against racist and antisemitic conduct.
The report immediately ignited widespread backlash and condemnation from lawmakers, civil rights advocates, and military watchdogs, forcing Coast Guard leadership and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the service, to move with urgency to dispute the narrative.
“The claims that the U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses, or other extremist imagery as prohibited symbols are categorically false. These symbols have been and remain prohibited in the Coast Guard per policy,” Adm. Kevin Lunday, acting Coast Guard commandant, said in a statement. “The Coast Guard remains unwavering in its commitment to fostering a safe, respectful, and professional workplace. Symbols such as swastikas, nooses, and other extremist or racist imagery violate our core values and are treated with the seriousness they warrant under current policy.”
In an unprofessional response, DHS went even further after Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin blasted the report as “fake crap” and “an absolute ludicrous lie,” insisting that the service is “unwavering in its commitment to fostering a safe, respectful, and professional workplace.”
“The @washingtonpost should be embarrassed it published this fake crap,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a Thursday post on social platform X.
“Y’all are just making things up now,” the DHS said in a separate post on X.
But even as officials denied any policy reversal, the Coast Guard released a sweeping new directive just hours later that explicitly and unequivocally bans “divisive or hate symbols,” including “a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups.” The service insisted the rollout was not corrective but clarifying.
“The U.S. Coast Guard announced the release of a policy and lawful order that doubles down on its current policies prohibiting the display, distribution, or use of hate symbols by Coast Guard personnel,” the press release states. “The policy and lawful order provides clear definitions, guidance, and expectations for Coast Guard personnel. It describes prohibited hate symbols in alignment with military policy.”
“This is not an updated policy but a new policy to combat any misinformation and double down that the U.S. Coast Guard forbids these symbols.”
Still, the timeline raised eyebrows. According to a report by the Associated Press, the Post had accurately identified a policy that was rolled out earlier in November also explicitly said that “the terminology ‘hate incident’ is no longer present in policy” and conduct that would have previously been handled as a potential hate incident in 2019 would now be treated as “a report of harassment in cases with an identified aggrieved individual.”
The policy shift also arrived less than two months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a review of military definitions surrounding hazing, bullying, and harassment, arguing that existing policies were “overly broad” and were “jeopardizing combat readiness, mission accomplishment, and trust in the organization.”
While the Department of Defense doesn’t directly manage the Coast Guard, the service branch’s draft guidance appeared to align with that push, eliminating the term “hate incident” and reframing the cases as general “harassment” claims requiring an “identified aggrieved individual.”
Democratic lawmakers condemned any move to soften standards around symbols long tied to racial terror and genocide. Rep. Rick Larsen took to X to call out the decision, stating that there should be no debate on hate.
“Lynching is a federal hate crime. The world defeated the Nazis in 1945.” Rep Rick Larsen (D, Wash.) posted. “The debate on these symbols is over. They symbolize hate. Coast Guard: be better.”
Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey echoed the sentiment, calling the move “disgusting” in a separate post on the platform.
“This is disgusting,” Sen. Ed Markey wrote. “We cannot let the Trump administration normalize hate.”
While the Coast Guard now insists that nooses, swastikas, and other extremist symbols “have been and remain prohibited,” the late-night scramble to release a more forceful policy, accompanied by DHS’s combative denials, highlights the tensions surrounding the Trump administration’s broader efforts to dismantle diversity initiatives and narrow definitions of hate and harassment across the military and country.
Whether the report reflected a planned policy reversal, an internal misstep, or an effort halted by public scrutiny, the Coast Guard is now emphatically doubling down on its stance, but the fault lines between established anti-extremism standards and an administration determined to eliminate them have been exposed.
SEE ALSO:
Karens, Klans And Caucasian Tears: The Grift Of Racism In America
