**U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols**
*The military service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, has drafted a new policy that classifies such items “potentially divisive.”*
The U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify the swastika — an emblem of fascism and white supremacy inextricably linked to the murder of millions of Jews and the deaths of more than 400,000 U.S. troops who died fighting in World War II — as a hate symbol, according to a new policy that takes effect next month.
Instead, the Coast Guard will classify the Nazi-era insignia as “potentially divisive” under its new guidelines. The new policy, set to take effect Dec. 15, similarly downgrades the definition of nooses and the Confederate flag, though display of the latter remains banned, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
Certain historic displays or artwork where the Confederate flag is a minor element are still permissible, according to the policy.
Though the Coast Guard is not part of the Defense Department, the service has been reworking its policies to align with the Trump administration’s changing tolerances for hazing and harassment within the U.S. military. In September Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed a review and overhaul of those policies, calling the military’s existing standards “overly broad” and saying they jeopardize U.S. troops’ combat readiness.
The Coast Guard did not immediately provide comment.
A Coast Guard official who had seen the new wording called the policy changes chilling.
“We don’t deserve the trust of the nation if we’re unclear about the divisiveness of swastikas,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to a fear of reprisal.
The Coast Guard is a military service branch under the Department of Homeland Security and the purview of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem. But the service, which has been central to President Donald Trump’s increased focus on homeland defense, has been swept up like the others in the administration’s rash of leadership firings and broader targeting of military culture.
Former Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan, the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military, was fired on Trump’s first day in office for what administration officials said then was her focus on diversity initiatives and her handling of sexual assault investigations.
Within days, Fagan’s replacement, acting commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday, ordered the suspension of the Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy that, among its other guidance, said explicitly that the swastika was among a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.” Nooses and the Confederate flag also matched that description under the previous policy.
Lunday was later nominated by Trump to become the service’s commandant. His Senate confirmation hearing was held Wednesday, and he was due to meet with lawmakers Thursday. It is unclear when the Senate Commerce, Transportation and Science Committee, which has jurisdiction over DHS, may vote to advance Lunday’s nomination.
The Pentagon, where Hegseth has argued that prior administrations’ focus on racial diversity has harmed military recruiting, referred questions on the Coast Guard’s policy to DHS, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The new policy drew concern from Commerce Committee member Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada), who called on the Trump administration to reverse the changes before they take effect.
“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,” Rosen said in a statement to The Post.
In Germany, public display of certain Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, is illegal and can be punished with a fine or imprisonment of up to three years. Exceptions are made if the symbols are used for educational, artistic, scientific or journalistic purposes.
Rosen noted that the wording in the new Coast Guard policy “could allow for horrifically hateful symbols like swastikas and nooses to be inexplicably permitted to be displayed.” The new guidance says that if a “potentially divisive” symbol is reported, supervisors should inquire about it. After consulting their legal office they may order the symbol’s removal but there’s no further guidance requiring that it be taken down.
glitterlok on
The ONLY possible way I could see this being a reasonable change is if it was very *very* clearly made in order to carve out space for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc to freely express or display symbols of their culture without being swept up in a rule meant to discourage Nazis.
IF someone came out and said, “Look, there are some terrific Hindus in this country and we don’t want to discourage them from signing up, so we’re putting it in the books that the swastika must be assessed contextually, rather than making a blanket condemnation of it…” I’d be like, “Okay, sure.”
I doubt that’s going to happen, though. I suspect this is exactly what it sounds like.
*Edit: It’s worth noting that the Coast Guard has flatly denied the thrust of this story, saying that swastikas and nooses and other symbols remain prohibited and are still seen as a violation of core values. They said they would be reviewing policy language changes that might make it seem otherwise.*
fowlraul on
This is not funny at all.
f8Negative on
Going to safely assume there were a plethora of swasitka reports to investigate
no2rdifferent on
Just like crosses everywhere, the swastikas are trying to dilute white nationalism.
Free_Dome_Lover on
What possible justification could there be
itsjustpie on
Giving the largest amount of undeserved grace, a swastika is not offensive in a Hindu context. It’s actually a very important symbol to this day in our religion. What most people call the swastika today is actually a hakencruz, a different symbol based on some old Christian crosses that the Nazis used. It looks similar to a proper Eastern swastika, but it’s at a 45 degree angle and it was originally created based on different source material.
That said, this admin is obviously talking about the hakencruz/“swastika” hate symbol because it’s included alongside a noose in the text! That’s insane. What could be the possible motivation for this other than a blatant approval of fascism and racism? I wonder how Fox News and the far right will explain this one away. They’ll probably just say “free speech.” Smdh.
SiteTall on
Neither is that unruly right arm that shoots out like in Evil Elon, right?
14 Comments
**U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols**
*The military service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, has drafted a new policy that classifies such items “potentially divisive.”*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/20/coast-guard-swastika-noose/
The U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify the swastika — an emblem of fascism and white supremacy inextricably linked to the murder of millions of Jews and the deaths of more than 400,000 U.S. troops who died fighting in World War II — as a hate symbol, according to a new policy that takes effect next month.
Instead, the Coast Guard will classify the Nazi-era insignia as “potentially divisive” under its new guidelines. The new policy, set to take effect Dec. 15, similarly downgrades the definition of nooses and the Confederate flag, though display of the latter remains banned, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
Certain historic displays or artwork where the Confederate flag is a minor element are still permissible, according to the policy.
Though the Coast Guard is not part of the Defense Department, the service has been reworking its policies to align with the Trump administration’s changing tolerances for hazing and harassment within the U.S. military. In September Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed a review and overhaul of those policies, calling the military’s existing standards “overly broad” and saying they jeopardize U.S. troops’ combat readiness.
The Coast Guard did not immediately provide comment.
A Coast Guard official who had seen the new wording called the policy changes chilling.
“We don’t deserve the trust of the nation if we’re unclear about the divisiveness of swastikas,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to a fear of reprisal.
The Coast Guard is a military service branch under the Department of Homeland Security and the purview of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem. But the service, which has been central to President Donald Trump’s increased focus on homeland defense, has been swept up like the others in the administration’s rash of leadership firings and broader targeting of military culture.
Former Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan, the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military, was fired on Trump’s first day in office for what administration officials said then was her focus on diversity initiatives and her handling of sexual assault investigations.
Within days, Fagan’s replacement, acting commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday, ordered the suspension of the Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy that, among its other guidance, said explicitly that the swastika was among a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.” Nooses and the Confederate flag also matched that description under the previous policy.
Lunday was later nominated by Trump to become the service’s commandant. His Senate confirmation hearing was held Wednesday, and he was due to meet with lawmakers Thursday. It is unclear when the Senate Commerce, Transportation and Science Committee, which has jurisdiction over DHS, may vote to advance Lunday’s nomination.
The Pentagon, where Hegseth has argued that prior administrations’ focus on racial diversity has harmed military recruiting, referred questions on the Coast Guard’s policy to DHS, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The new policy drew concern from Commerce Committee member Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada), who called on the Trump administration to reverse the changes before they take effect.
“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,” Rosen said in a statement to The Post.
In Germany, public display of certain Nazi emblems, such as the swastika, is illegal and can be punished with a fine or imprisonment of up to three years. Exceptions are made if the symbols are used for educational, artistic, scientific or journalistic purposes.
Rosen noted that the wording in the new Coast Guard policy “could allow for horrifically hateful symbols like swastikas and nooses to be inexplicably permitted to be displayed.” The new guidance says that if a “potentially divisive” symbol is reported, supervisors should inquire about it. After consulting their legal office they may order the symbol’s removal but there’s no further guidance requiring that it be taken down.
The ONLY possible way I could see this being a reasonable change is if it was very *very* clearly made in order to carve out space for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc to freely express or display symbols of their culture without being swept up in a rule meant to discourage Nazis.
IF someone came out and said, “Look, there are some terrific Hindus in this country and we don’t want to discourage them from signing up, so we’re putting it in the books that the swastika must be assessed contextually, rather than making a blanket condemnation of it…” I’d be like, “Okay, sure.”
I doubt that’s going to happen, though. I suspect this is exactly what it sounds like.
*Edit: It’s worth noting that the Coast Guard has flatly denied the thrust of this story, saying that swastikas and nooses and other symbols remain prohibited and are still seen as a violation of core values. They said they would be reviewing policy language changes that might make it seem otherwise.*
This is not funny at all.
Going to safely assume there were a plethora of swasitka reports to investigate
Just like crosses everywhere, the swastikas are trying to dilute white nationalism.
What possible justification could there be
Giving the largest amount of undeserved grace, a swastika is not offensive in a Hindu context. It’s actually a very important symbol to this day in our religion. What most people call the swastika today is actually a hakencruz, a different symbol based on some old Christian crosses that the Nazis used. It looks similar to a proper Eastern swastika, but it’s at a 45 degree angle and it was originally created based on different source material.
That said, this admin is obviously talking about the hakencruz/“swastika” hate symbol because it’s included alongside a noose in the text! That’s insane. What could be the possible motivation for this other than a blatant approval of fascism and racism? I wonder how Fox News and the far right will explain this one away. They’ll probably just say “free speech.” Smdh.
Neither is that unruly right arm that shoots out like in Evil Elon, right?
https://preview.redd.it/bk0843nrfh2g1.jpeg?width=770&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97dca526fedb946a1b2fb3bbbfbe0802a5f7bbd3
Neither is that unruly right arm that shoots out like in Evil Elon, right?
lemme guess, so they can have tattoos like the secretary of War!1! ?
“We don’t know why they call us Nazis” -Republicans
I wonder how the ADL is feeling right now??
The only defensible version of this is recognizing the Hindu/Buddhist versions are exceptions.
Wtf