[ad_1]
The U.S. Coast Guard is scrambling to clarify proposed internal policy changes that appeared to loosen how the service branch handles the conduct within its ranks involving hate symbols including nooses, swastikas, and other extremist symbols — touching off a political firestorm inside the nation’s smallest military branch after the Space Force.
The controversy centers on a little-noticed personnel directive signed on Nov. 13 by Rear Admiral Charles Fosse, the assistant commandant for personnel, following a report by the Washington Post. The document, titled “Harassing Behavior Prevention, Response and Accountability,” contained a provision that proposed replacing longstanding language that explicitly identified swastikas, nooses, Confederate iconography and other symbols of racial or religious hatred as “incidents of hatred and prejudice.”
Instead, the Coast Guard’s new policy recast those same images as “potentially divisive,” a subtle but consequential shift that alarmed lawmakers and civil rights groups when it was first reported this week.
What did the original policy actually change?
The internal guidance that ignited the controversy introduced a few changes. The Coast Guard eliminated the term “hate incident.” Instead, conduct previously handled under that category was referred to as harassment — and only when a specific victim could be identified.
The guidance also raised the threshold for disciplinary action by specifying that public displays of extremist symbols would constitute misconduct only if they could be shown to harm “good order and discipline, unit cohesion, command climate, morale or mission effectiveness.”
Further, the policy also allowed symbols “widely identified with oppression or hatred” to be displayed in private or non-public settings, including military housing. The policy removed gender identity from the list of protected characteristics altogether, aligning the Coast Guard with Mr. Trump’s January executive order barring transgender service.
It also required that harassment be “severe or pervasive” and judged by a “reasonable person.” And it went out of its way to note that hazing — even when it involves physical force — can serve “a proper military or other governmental purpose,” a framing that echoes Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s push to cultivate a tougher “warrior ethos.”
What was the response?
For years, Coast Guard policy has drawn a bright line on extremist symbols, stating unequivocally that items like nooses and swastikas “have no place in the Coast Guard.” The discovery that the service intended to downgrade them to “potentially divisive” immediately raised alarms on Capitol Hill.
Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois said she met with the Coast Guard’s acting commandant, Adm. Kevin Lunday, to express her concerns and was reassured that the policy would be clarified.
“He came by the office and assured us that there is an across-the-board prohibition on hate symbols, including swastikas and nooses,” Underwood remarked in a video statement.
Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington said in a statement, Thursday, that “lynching is a federal hate crime. The world defeated the Nazis in 1945. The debate on these symbols is over.” He added, “Coast Guard: be better.”
By removing the “hate incident” designation, the Coast Guard appeared to create a narrower pathway for removing racist or extremist imagery from operational facilities, barracks and other training environments. Its new timeline for reporting — requiring victims to come forward within 45 days — also raised eyebrows over concerns it might deter reporting and make enforcement harder.
In January, President Trump abruptly removed Adm. Linda Fagan as commandant just a day after taking office, placing Coast Guard leadership under scrutiny.
What is the Coast Guard saying now?
In response to the uproar, Lunday issued a forceful statement just hours after the policy became public, asserting that “any display, use or promotion of symbols like nooses and swastikas will be thoroughly investigated and severely punished.”
Later that night, the service released an additional memo declaring that “divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited” at Coast Guard workplaces — an even firmer posture. The Coast Guard insisted the new memo was not a reversal but rather a clarification meant to counter “misinformation” and reaffirm the service’s longstanding stance against extremist imagery.
Still, leadership has not explained why earlier guidance explicitly permitted private displays or eliminated the “hate incident” language altogether.
How do harassment cases work under the new framework?
Even with the late clarifications, the underlying mechanics of the directive remain changed in significant ways. Because the term “hate incident” has been retired, displays of extremist symbols are not automatically categorized as harassment, and commanders will have to determine whether a specific victim exists and whether the conduct meets the now higher bar of being “severe or pervasive.”
Investigations and punishment will use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard — higher than before — and leaders evaluating an incident must consider how a hypothetical “reasonable person” would interpret any alleged misconduct.
The directive does reinforce that any public displays of the Confederate battle flag remain prohibited, except in rare instances of historical or artistic contexts. And although victims have 45 days to file a harassment report, commanders must notify their chain of command within 48 hours if an incident sparks potential interest from the media or Congress.
The Coast Guard occupies a unique middle ground — subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice but operating under the Department of Homeland Security rather than the Defense Department. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been outspoken in his intent to roll back what he views as “woke” personnel policies, including diversity initiatives and certain extremism-prevention measures.
[ad_2]
