Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Swatting not hate symbol
Executive summary
Reporting in multiple outlets says the U.S. Coast Guard has drafted or published a policy change that would stop classifying swastikas and nooses as formal “hate symbols,” but the service has publicly denied that characterization, calling such reports “categorically false” [1] [2]. Outside the Coast Guard story, experts and law-enforcement records show swatting is sometimes motivated by bias or extremist actors — ADL and DOJ reporting document clear links between swatting, ideological targeting, and coordinated extremist campaigns [3] [4] [5].
1. Coast Guard policy headlines — what was reported and the pushback
Several outlets ran headlines saying the Coast Guard would no longer classify swastikas and nooses as hate symbols, describing a draft policy that would downgrade them from “hate symbol” to “potentially divisive” and reduce grounds for removal from facilities [1] [6]. The service responded directly, saying the Washington Post portrayal was “categorically false” and reiterating that prior guidance still allows commanders to remove swastikas, nooses and other imagery as potential hate incidents or harassment [2]. Readers should therefore treat initial headlines and the Coast Guard’s denial as competing accounts in active dispute [1] [2].
2. Why the swastika and noose are widely understood as hate symbols
Non-governmental hate-symbol databases and educational groups document that the swastika and noose have been co-opted by hate movements and are widely recognized as symbols of oppression: ADL and other databases used by law enforcement list the swastika among the most recognizable symbols linked to white supremacy, and institutional resources warn these symbols are used to intimidate and mobilize hate groups [7] [8]. That background helps explain why marking them as “hate” versus “divisive” is politically and culturally consequential even if a military instruction’s wording changes [7] [8].
3. Swatting: motives range from pranks to ideological attacks
Swatting — phoning false emergencies to provoke armed police responses — is not monolithic. The ADL says swatting has multiple motivations, including ideological bias where attackers target people because of identity, as well as harassment, intimidation, and “for entertainment” motives [3]. The Justice Department’s prosecutions likewise show swatting can be part of organized, ideologically driven criminal campaigns; federal cases have tied serial swatting and solicitations to extremist networks and to individuals who admitted to soliciting hate crimes and threatening mass violence [5] [4].
4. Law enforcement and extremism links: recent patterns and terminology
Justice and security analysts have noted an uptick in swatting tied to what some federal actors classify as “nihilistic violent extremism” — groups aiming to sow chaos and collapse social order. Reporting on 2025 incidents cites an online network, “Purgatory” and “The Com,” as claiming responsibility for numerous campus swattings; the FBI had adopted “NVE” language to describe actors motivated by hatred of society at large [4]. Separately, DOJ press releases of individual prosecutions show swatting can be entwined with solicitations to commit hate crimes and other violent instructions [5].
5. Why the Coast Guard story matters to hate-symbol debates
Even if internal policy language changes, the debate matters because public institutions’ labeling affects how incidents are documented, investigated, and disciplined. Critics argue downgrading a symbol reduces accountability and sanitizes its meaning; defenders (or officials denying the change) argue existing guidance already allows commanders discretion and that semantics don’t eliminate removal authority [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention operational details showing whether any change would affect civilian policing or federal prosecution standards for hate-motivated acts [1] [2].
6. What to watch next — verification and consequences
Follow direct Coast Guard communications for any finalized instruction text and check whether the service updates its 2019 guidance cited in the denial, because the disagreement now is between media reports of a draft and the service’s categorical denial [2]. Also monitor DOJ and FBI public statements and prosecutions: if swatting continues to be tied to extremist networks and hate-motivated solicitation, prosecutions and intelligence assessments will provide clearer evidence of motive and organized campaigns [4] [5].
Limitations and final note: coverage in the cited results contains both assertive headlines about the Coast Guard’s supposed reclassification and an explicit denial from the service; these are direct, conflicting claims in the public record and warrant caution. Sources used: TMZ and Truthout reporting on the draft or reported change [1] [6] and the Coast Guard’s denial reported by WTNH/The Hill [2]; ADL, DOJ, and Just Security analyses on swatting motives and extremist links [3] [5] [4]; hate-symbol databases and academic summaries describing the swastika’s use by hate groups [7] [8].