The U.S. Coast Guard, one of America’s oldest and most storied military services, found itself at the center of a national controversy this week after a sudden policy reversal regarding the display of hate symbols such as swastikas and nooses. The episode, which unfolded over just a few days in late November 2025, drew sharp criticism from lawmakers, advocacy groups, and the public, and has reignited debate about extremism, inclusion, and accountability within the armed forces.
On November 21, 2025, The Washington Post reported that the Coast Guard was preparing to implement a new policy reclassifying swastikas and nooses—not as outright hate symbols, but as “potentially divisive.” This policy, originally set to take effect on December 15, was part of a broader effort to align the Coast Guard’s internal guidelines with recent Pentagon directives. According to the Coast Guard’s own draft, commanders would have the authority to remove such symbols if they were found to affect morale or discipline, but the symbols would not be explicitly banned in private spaces.
The reaction was swift and fierce. Lawmakers from both parties, including Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), who co-chair the Senate’s bipartisan Task Force on Combatting Antisemitism, immediately demanded clarification. Senator Rosen did not mince words, stating, “This revised policy weakens essential safeguards against hate and could inexplicably permit the display of deeply offensive symbols like swastikas and nooses.” She went on to warn that, “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,” as reported by The Washington Post and other outlets.
Advocacy organizations and experts also weighed in. Menachem Rosensaft, a law professor at Cornell University and a prominent Jewish community leader, remarked 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.’” These sentiments echoed across social media and in statements from civil rights groups.
The backlash was compounded by recent incidents within the Coast Guard itself. Representative Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) recalled the discovery of two nooses at the Coast Guard Academy, one of which was found in the bag of a Black cadet. “In response, then-Commandant Thad Allen personally flew up to the Academy campus in New London to emphatically tell cadets that this hate behavior has no place in the Coast Guard,” Courtney recounted, underscoring the ongoing struggle to root out hate within the ranks.
Faced with mounting criticism, the Coast Guard acted quickly. Late on November 22, 2025, just hours after the initial policy was made public, the service issued a new, much firmer directive. According to a press release posted on the Coast Guard website, “Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited. These symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, anti-semitism, or any other improper bias.” The new policy took effect immediately and was described by the Coast Guard as “a new policy to combat any misinformation and double down that the U.S. Coast Guard forbids these symbols.”
Acting Commandant Admiral Kevin Lunday sought to reassure both the public and Coast Guard personnel, stating unequivocally, “These symbols have been and remain prohibited in the Coast Guard per policy. Any display, use or promotion of such symbols, as always, will be thoroughly investigated and severely punished.” He further clarified in a memo to the entire service that the ban applied to all Coast Guard locations, not just public spaces, and that the policy was intended to be consistent with similar Pentagon directives.
The Coast Guard’s reversal did little to quell broader concerns about how such policies are enforced and whether they go far enough in protecting service members from harassment and hate. The earlier November 2025 draft had removed the term “hate incident” from official language, instead treating such behavior as harassment only if there was an identified aggrieved individual. Critics argued this could make it harder for victims to report or for commanders to act proactively, as the burden of proof would shift and the scope of investigations might narrow. “The latest policy update does not specify if USCG personnel can report that they were victims of a hate incident,” The Hill noted, highlighting a gap that lawmakers want addressed.
Commanders and supervisors are now explicitly responsible for removing hateful symbols when found, and the policy goes so far as to ban Confederate battle flags from all Coast Guard workplaces, barracks, clothing, and vehicles—with only limited exceptions for educational or historical displays and state flags or license plates. “Lynching is a federal hate crime,” Representative Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) said pointedly. “The world defeated the Nazis in 1945. The debate on these symbols is over. They symbolize hate.”
Still, the episode has exposed lingering tensions within the military about how best to balance operational readiness, individual rights, and the imperative to foster a culture of inclusion. The Coast Guard’s policy change followed a Defense Department-wide review ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who argued that existing harassment and hazing definitions were “overly broad” and could “jeopardize combat readiness, mission accomplishment, and trust in the organization.” Some Pentagon officials, especially those appointed under President Donald Trump, have pushed for a narrower focus on what constitutes actionable misconduct, contending that an “excessive focus” on diversity and inclusion could distract from core missions. Indeed, former Coast Guard commandant Admiral Linda Fagan was dismissed on Trump’s first day in office, reportedly for prioritizing such efforts.
For now, the Coast Guard’s stance is clear: hate symbols like swastikas and nooses are banned, and any violations will be met with serious consequences. But questions remain about how the policy will be enforced, what protections exist for those who come forward, and whether this latest reversal marks a lasting commitment or just a temporary response to public outrage. As lawmakers and advocates continue to press for answers, the Coast Guard’s experience may serve as a cautionary tale for other branches of the military grappling with similar issues.
In the end, the Coast Guard’s rapid about-face highlights just how fraught—and how vital—the fight against hate and extremism remains within America’s armed forces.
