Coast Guard Rejects Claims on Hate Symbol Policy Change

On Thursday, the U.S. Coast Guard firmly refuted assertions from a recent Washington Post article that suggested the organization would stop labeling swastikas and nooses as “hate symbols” in its internal guidelines. This claim was described as “fabricated.”

In a swift response, Acting Commandant Admiral Kevin E. Lunday labeled the report “categorically false.” He emphasized that the Coast Guard will continue to classify swastikas, nooses, and other extremist symbols as prohibited.

The Washington Post article, which was published early Thursday, mentioned forthcoming guidance supposedly set to be released in December. The piece indicated that the new policy would shift the classification of these symbols from “hate symbols” to “potentially divisive,” a change that critics argued could hinder efforts to address White supremacy and antisemitism within the service.

This report sparked immediate outrage. Jewish organizations expressed their anger, civil rights leaders condemned it as a moral failure, and some Democratic lawmakers condemned the alleged policy change, viewing it as a capitulation to extremism.

Shortly after the controversy erupted, officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) countered the report, asserting no final policy was in place that would diminish the existing bans. They characterized the Washington Post article as “an absolute ludicrous lie and unequivocally false.”

The Coast Guard confirmed that its final guidance will maintain the current classifications. As of Thursday evening, swastikas and nooses, along with other recognized hate symbols, remain explicitly prohibited under Coast Guard policy. Any infractions will lead to disciplinary actions and must be reported through the service’s tracking system for extremism.

Importantly, the Coast Guard operates under the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of War. The Washington Post modified its article to reflect the Coast Guard’s denial but maintained confidence in its original assertions.