The military branch issued a categorical denial after a November document appeared to reclassify hate symbols as harassment rather than hate incidents
The Coast Guard is pushing back forcefully against reports suggesting it changed how it classifies hate symbols like swastikas and nooses, issuing what officials describe as a categorical denial amid growing confusion over conflicting policy documents.
A Coast Guard document dated Nov. 2 appeared to indicate that symbols such as swastikas and nooses would now be classified as harassment rather than hate incidents. The apparent policy shift drew immediate scrutiny and prompted questions about whether the military branch was softening its stance on extremist imagery.
The document that sparked controversy
ABC News reviewed the Nov. 2 policy document and compared it to a 2023 version, revealing notable wording differences regarding how the Coast Guard categorizes incidents involving potentially offensive symbols. The changes went beyond simple linguistic adjustments and seemed to represent a fundamental shift in classification approach.
The November 2025 document states that conduct previously handled as a potential hate incident, including those involving symbols widely identified with oppression or hatred, would be processed as a report of harassment in cases with an identified aggrieved individual. Perhaps most significantly, the document explicitly noted that the terminology hate incident is no longer present in policy.
This represented a stark departure from the 2023 version, which specifically categorized a noose, a swastika, supremacist symbols, Confederate symbols or flags, and anti-Semitic symbols as potential hate incidents.
Leadership issues categorical denial
Acting Commandant Kevin Lunday responded with an emphatic statement rejecting any suggestion that the Coast Guard weakened its position on hate symbols. He declared that claims the service will no longer classify swastikas, nooses or other extremist imagery as prohibited symbols are categorically false.
Lunday emphasized that any display, use or promotion of such symbols will continue to be thoroughly investigated and severely punished, just as it has been in the past. His statement attempted to draw a clear line between the policy changes documented in the Nov. 2 file and the actual enforcement approach the Coast Guard plans to maintain.
The acting commandant stressed that the Coast Guard remains unwavering in its commitment to fostering a safe, respectful and professional workplace. He specifically noted that symbols such as swastikas, nooses and other extremist or racist imagery violate the service’s core values and are treated with the seriousness they warrant under current policy.
Key differences between documents
The Nov. 2 policy document describes potentially divisive symbols and flags as including but not limited to 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, or other bias.
While that language still identifies these symbols as problematic, the classification framework differs significantly from the 2023 approach. Rather than labeling incidents involving these images as hate incidents, the new document processes them through a harassment framework when an aggrieved individual can be identified.
This distinction matters because how incidents are classified can affect how they’re investigated, what penalties apply, and how the Coast Guard tracks patterns of problematic behavior within its ranks.
Updated clarification issued Thursday
The Coast Guard released an updated document Thursday night attempting to clear up the confusion. The new version makes explicit that divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited, using language designed to eliminate any ambiguity about the service’s stance.
The Thursday document specifies that prohibited symbols include but are not limited to 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 order clearly states that displaying any divisive or hate symbol is prohibited and such symbols must be removed from all Coast Guard workplaces, facilities, and assets.
Internal message to service members
Lunday and Master Chief Petty Officer Phil Waldron sent a direct message to Coast Guard members addressing The Washington Post’s reporting on the policy change. The internal communication, obtained by ABC News, used unambiguous language to emphasize the service’s position.
The message stated that the Coast Guard’s policy prohibiting hate and discrimination is absolute, leaving no room for interpretation or exceptions. Leadership described the prohibited symbols as representing repugnant ideologies in direct opposition to everything the service stands for.
The internal communication emphasized zero tolerance for hate within Coast Guard ranks, using stronger language than appeared in some of the external statements. This suggests leadership recognized the need to send an unequivocal message to service members who might have been confused by the conflicting policy documents.
Questions remain about the confusion
The controversy raises questions about why the Nov. 2 document used different terminology from previous versions and what prompted the apparent reclassification from hate incidents to harassment. Coast Guard officials have not provided detailed explanations for the wording changes beyond the denial that policy substance has changed.
The timing of the document release, coming just weeks before leadership issued the Thursday clarification, suggests possible confusion within the policy development process itself. Whether the Nov. 2 version represented an intentional policy shift that was later reversed or simply unclear drafting that required correction remains unclear.
The Coast Guard’s ability to maintain credibility on this issue depends on consistently enforcing its stated zero tolerance policy regardless of what terminology appears in official documents. Service members displaying swastikas, nooses or similar imagery would face discipline under any version of the policy, but the classification framework could potentially affect the severity of charges and how incidents are tracked for patterns of systemic problems.
