On the evening of November 21, 2025, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a sweeping new directive: the display of hate symbols—including nooses, swastikas, and any flags or insignia adopted by hate-based groups—was now explicitly prohibited across all its ranks and facilities. This decisive move came just hours after a draft policy, which had described such symbols merely as "potentially divisive," sparked sharp backlash from lawmakers and the public alike.
According to The Associated Press and The Washington Post, the controversy began when it was revealed that the Coast Guard had been preparing to roll out a policy that stopped short of banning hate symbols outright. Instead, the earlier draft advised commanders to remove these symbols from public view if they were deemed disruptive, but did not extend the rule to private spaces such as family housing. It also omitted the term "hate incident," which had been a fixture in previous policies, and instead classified such conduct as "reports of harassment"—but only if there was an identified aggrieved individual.
The reaction was immediate. Senator Jacky Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, and Senator James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma—co-chairs of the Senate’s bipartisan antisemitism task force—voiced strong objections. Rosen, in particular, warned that "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." This sentiment was echoed by other lawmakers who feared that loosening the Coast Guard’s stance could undermine trust and safety within the service.
In response to the uproar, Acting Commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday moved quickly. Late on Thursday, November 21, he released a memo to all Coast Guard personnel. The policy was clear and unequivocal: “Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited.” The new directive specified that this includes "a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups." The Coast Guard’s accompanying news release underscored the urgency and intent of the change, stating, “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.”
The new policy took effect immediately, marking a sharp reversal from the draft version that had prompted such concern. According to The Associated Press, both Rosen and Lankford spoke with Adm. Lunday on Thursday evening, just before the memo was issued. In a letter sent the following day, the senators called the new policy "a step in the right direction to affirm the Coast Guard’s commitment to maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all its members." Yet, they made it clear that questions remained—particularly about how the new rules would be enforced.
The senators’ letter sought clarification on a pivotal issue: under the new policy, supervisors are directed to "inquire" into incidents involving hate symbols, rather than conduct formal investigations as mandated by the 2019 and 2023 policies. Rosen and Lankford pressed Adm. Lunday for the rationale behind this change, writing, “Any inquiry regarding conduct involving imagery historically associated with genocide, terror, and racial subjugation must, at a minimum, be full and transparent to ensure the civil rights of those impacted are protected and conducted in a manner in which victims feel safe to report these incidents.” They added, “Additionally, we would like to better understand the rationale for why the inquiry process was deemed to be preferable to the investigative process.”
The difference between an "inquiry" and a formal investigation is not just semantic. In the military context, an inquiry can be a less rigorous, internal review, whereas a formal investigation typically involves more thorough procedures, documentation, and accountability. The senators’ concern is that without robust investigative mechanisms, victims of hate incidents may not feel protected or confident in coming forward—potentially allowing toxic behavior to go unchecked.
This isn’t the first time the Coast Guard’s approach to hate symbols has come under scrutiny. The service’s 2019 policy had described symbols like swastikas and nooses as “widely identified with oppression or hatred” and classified their display as a “potential hate incident.” That language was later softened in a draft earlier this month, which referred to such symbols as “potentially divisive” and stopped short of an outright ban. The earlier policy also allowed commanders, in consultation with legal advisors, to remove such symbols if they were found to be affecting unit morale or discipline—but again, only from public spaces.
Notably, the Coast Guard’s latest policy maintains a longstanding prohibition on the public display of the Confederate flag, except in limited educational or historical contexts. This aligns the service with similar Pentagon directives and reflects its broader efforts to harmonize human resources policies with those of other branches of the armed forces. The Coast Guard, while part of the Department of Homeland Security, is still considered a branch of the U.S. military and has historically modeled many of its personnel policies on those used by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
The policy shift also comes in the wake of significant leadership changes. Adm. Linda Fagan, Adm. Lunday’s predecessor, was dismissed on President Donald Trump’s first day in office in 2021. Trump administration officials later said her removal was due, in part, to what they described as an “excessive focus” on diversity and inclusion initiatives—efforts they argued diverted resources from operational priorities. This context has added another layer of political complexity to the current debate over the Coast Guard’s handling of hate symbols and the broader issue of diversity and inclusion within the armed services.
For many observers, the Coast Guard’s rapid reversal and the senators’ continued oversight highlight the delicate balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining unit cohesion. The new policy may have quelled immediate concerns about permissiveness toward hate symbols, but the questions raised by Rosen and Lankford underscore that the implementation—and not just the wording—of these rules will determine their effectiveness. Ensuring that victims feel safe to report incidents, that supervisors are held accountable for addressing complaints, and that the process is both transparent and fair will be key challenges in the months ahead.
As the Coast Guard moves forward, lawmakers and civil rights advocates will be watching closely to see whether the new policy delivers on its promise of safety and inclusivity. For now, the message from the top is clear: hate has no place in the ranks—but how that principle is enforced in practice remains to be seen.
