Focus on the BIG picture.
Friday, Dec 19, 2025
Outside the box.
U.S. Coast Guard Removes Contested Policy Language on Swastikas and Nooses After Backlash
Controversial workplace harassment policy wording is deleted amid political dispute and affirmation of zero-tolerance for hate symbols
The U.S. Coast Guard has abruptly removed language from its workplace harassment policy that had reclassified hate symbols such as swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive,” responding to fierce criticism from lawmakers, veterans groups and civil rights advocates.
The revision to the manual, which quietly took effect this week, had drawn bipartisan condemnation for seeming to soften the service’s longstanding prohibition on imagery deeply associated with racism and antisemitism.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem issued a directive to eliminate the disputed language, saying the move was intended to ensure there could be no misrepresentation of the Coast Guard’s position on hate symbols and to reaffirm that such imagery has no place in the service.
The episode had also affected the confirmation process for Admiral Kevin Lunday, whose nomination as the permanent commandant of the Coast Guard was temporarily stalled by Senate holds from Democratic Senators Tammy Duckworth and Jacky Rosen, who demanded clear assurances that the symbols would continue to be explicitly banned.
Following the policy revision, both senators lifted their holds, allowing a late-night Senate vote to proceed.
Lunday, who had previously issued a separate directive affirming that swastikas and nooses were prohibited, said the rescission of the controversial text in the manual aligns with that commitment.
The initial change to the harassment policy had drawn scrutiny amid rising concerns over antisemitism and racial hatred nationally, with critics arguing that classifying emblematic hate symbols as only “potentially divisive” could weaken enforcement and send the wrong message about the Coast Guard’s values.
In response to the uproar, Coast Guard leadership and the Department of Homeland Security maintained that the service maintains a zero-tolerance stance toward hate symbols and extremist conduct.
The abrupt deletion of the language underscores the sensitivity of hate-related policy in the current political climate and reflects efforts by military and civilian leadership to clarify standards governing conduct and symbolism within the armed services.
The revision to the manual, which quietly took effect this week, had drawn bipartisan condemnation for seeming to soften the service’s longstanding prohibition on imagery deeply associated with racism and antisemitism.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem issued a directive to eliminate the disputed language, saying the move was intended to ensure there could be no misrepresentation of the Coast Guard’s position on hate symbols and to reaffirm that such imagery has no place in the service.
The episode had also affected the confirmation process for Admiral Kevin Lunday, whose nomination as the permanent commandant of the Coast Guard was temporarily stalled by Senate holds from Democratic Senators Tammy Duckworth and Jacky Rosen, who demanded clear assurances that the symbols would continue to be explicitly banned.
Following the policy revision, both senators lifted their holds, allowing a late-night Senate vote to proceed.
Lunday, who had previously issued a separate directive affirming that swastikas and nooses were prohibited, said the rescission of the controversial text in the manual aligns with that commitment.
The initial change to the harassment policy had drawn scrutiny amid rising concerns over antisemitism and racial hatred nationally, with critics arguing that classifying emblematic hate symbols as only “potentially divisive” could weaken enforcement and send the wrong message about the Coast Guard’s values.
In response to the uproar, Coast Guard leadership and the Department of Homeland Security maintained that the service maintains a zero-tolerance stance toward hate symbols and extremist conduct.
The abrupt deletion of the language underscores the sensitivity of hate-related policy in the current political climate and reflects efforts by military and civilian leadership to clarify standards governing conduct and symbolism within the armed services.
