In a stunning and hasty reversal, the U.S. Coast Guard announced late Thursday that swastikas and nooses are prohibited hate symbols — erasing an attempt to soften their definition after the plan elicited furious backlash.
The abrupt policy change occurred hours after the Washington Post first reported that the service was about to enact new harassment guidelines that downgraded the meaning of such symbols of fascism and racism, labeling them instead “potentially divisive.” That shift had been set to take effect Dec. 15.
In a memo to Coast Guard personnel, the service’s acting commandant, Adm. Kevin Lunday, said the policy document issued late Thursday night supersedes all previous guidance on the issue.
“Divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited,” Lunday wrote in his memo. “These symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: 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, antisemitism, or any other improper bias.”
The revision also emphasizes that Confederate flags remain banned from display, except in limited contexts or where they are part of a historical display or a minor part of a painting.
It was unclear Friday morning who had directed the attempt to reclassify such symbols as “potentially divisive” rather than hate symbols. A Coast Guard spokeswoman did not immediately address questions about how the late-night policy reversal came to be.
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Coast Guard under the purview of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem, did not respond to questions Friday seeking to understand whether Noem or her staff at DHS had any involvement in attempting to classify swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive,” or whether the secretary had even known about the planned language change before the Post’s story was published.
Instead, the agency’s chief spokeswoman, Tricia McLaughlin, issued a statement attacking the Post and falsely claiming that its initial reporting was “demonstrably false.”