Coast guard noose
Executive summary
The U.S. Coast Guard published a November policy draft that described swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive” rather than automatically classifying them as “hate incidents,” prompting immediate outcry and a rapid clarification that those symbols remain prohibited (see The Washington Post and subsequent Coast Guard clarification) [1] [2]. Multiple outlets report the service then issued a firmer policy restating that “divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited,” explicitly listing nooses and swastikas [2] [3] [4].
1. What changed — the policy text and the reaction
In a November 2025 revision titled “Harassing Behavior Prevention, Response and Accountability,” a section removed the specific label “hate incident” and used the phrase “potentially divisive” for imagery including a noose and a swastika; that wording was reported publicly and triggered swift criticism from lawmakers and advocacy groups [1] [5]. Media reports say the change would have taken effect Dec. 15, heightening urgency in coverage and political responses [6] [5].
2. How the Coast Guard responded — backtracking and prohibition
After the outcry, the Coast Guard issued a follow-up policy or clarification that doubled down on prohibiting hate or divisive symbols, explicitly naming swastikas and nooses and saying such displays “are prohibited,” with senior officials— including Acting Commandant Kevin Lunday—saying violations will be investigated and punished [2] [3] [7]. Several outlets portray this as a rapid reversal or clarification of the earlier draft language [4] [7].
3. Why advocates and lawmakers objected
Critics argued that recasting these emblems as merely “potentially divisive” risked eroding protections and could dissuade victims from reporting incidents because the policy eliminated a dedicated “hate incident” category and appeared to fold such cases into general harassment channels [6] [8] [9]. Elected officials and civil-rights advocates said nooses and swastikas are widely recognized as emblems of lynching and genocide and should not be subject to equivocal language [2] [8].
4. Conflicting narratives in reporting
News organizations differ in emphasis: The Washington Post led with the draft’s language and reported the initial reclassification [1]; outlets like CNN, NBC, Fortune and Snopes emphasize that the Coast Guard subsequently reissued or clarified a policy expressly prohibiting the symbols [2] [3] [7] [10]. Some outlets describe the development as a “backlash” and “reversal,” while the Coast Guard and some officials characterized headlines as inaccurate and insisted policy still bans those symbols [2] [9].
5. Historical and institutional context
Reporting notes the Coast Guard had a 2019–2023 practice treating swastikas, nooses and Confederate symbols as “potential hate incidents,” with procedures allowing commanders to order removal even when no individual victim was identified; the November draft removed that special category and the institutional mechanism it created [4] [11]. Past incidents cited in coverage include nooses found on Navy ships and a 2007 noose incident at the Coast Guard Academy, showing why the topic is institutionally sensitive [6].
6. What remains unclear or unresolved
Available sources confirm a draft used the term “potentially divisive” and that the service quickly issued language forbidding the symbols, but reporting differs on timing and whether procedural changes (like eliminating the separate “hate incident” investigative route) remain in place and how they will be applied in practice [10] [7] [11]. The Coast Guard’s full final directive, its effective date, and detailed enforcement procedures are described differently across outlets; available sources do not fully explain how commanders will handle cases under the revised framework going forward [10].
7. Competing interpretations and possible motives
Some critics interpret the draft as a rollback that could chill reporting and reduce protections, while the Coast Guard and allied reports frame the communication as a clarification rather than a substantive policy loosening and emphasize immediate prohibitions [8] [9] [3]. Political context—Congressional scrutiny, advocacy pressure, and the Coast Guard’s chain of command under DHS—shaped rapid public messaging and the apparent reversal [2] [12].
8. Bottom line for readers
The episode shows a policy draft that softened language about swastikas and nooses provoked immediate pushback and a near-immediate Coast Guard clarification restating those symbols are prohibited; however, questions remain about procedural changes to how “hate incidents” are investigated and whether those procedural shifts persist in final guidance [1] [2] [11]. Readers should watch for the Coast Guard’s final published directive and any congressional or inspector-general reviews for definitive answers [7] [5].