The U.S. Coast Guard is scrambling to make clear proposed inside coverage adjustments that appeared to loosen how the service department handles the conduct inside its ranks involving hate symbols together with nooses, swastikas, and different extremist symbols — touching off a political firestorm contained in the nation’s smallest navy department after the Area Drive.
The controversy facilities on a little-noticed personnel directive signed on Nov. 13 by Rear Admiral Charles Fosse, the assistant commandant for personnel, following a report by the Washington Publish. The doc, titled “Harassing Conduct Prevention, Response and Accountability,” contained a provision that proposed changing longstanding language that explicitly recognized swastikas, nooses, Accomplice iconography and different symbols of racial or non secular hatred as “incidents of hatred and prejudice.”
As a substitute, the Coast Guard’s new coverage recast those self same photos as “probably divisive,” a delicate however consequential shift that alarmed lawmakers and civil rights teams when it was first reported this week.
What did the unique coverage really change?
The inner steerage that ignited the controversy launched just a few adjustments. The Coast Guard eradicated the time period “hate incident.” As a substitute, conduct beforehand dealt with below that class was known as harassment — and solely when a particular sufferer may very well be recognized.
The steerage additionally raised the brink for disciplinary motion by specifying that public shows of extremist symbols would represent misconduct provided that they may very well be proven to hurt “good order and self-discipline, unit cohesion, command local weather, morale or mission effectiveness.”
Additional, the coverage additionally allowed symbols “extensively recognized with oppression or hatred” to be displayed in personal or private settings, together with navy housing. The coverage eliminated gender id from the record of protected traits altogether, aligning the Coast Guard with Mr. Trump’s January government order barring transgender service.
It additionally required that harassment be “extreme or pervasive” and judged by a “affordable particular person.” And it went out of its strategy to word that hazing — even when it entails bodily pressure — can serve “a correct navy or different governmental goal,” a framing that echoes Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth’s push to domesticate a harder “warrior ethos.”
What was the response?
For years, Coast Guard coverage has drawn a vibrant line on extremist symbols, stating unequivocally that gadgets like nooses and swastikas “haven’t any place within the Coast Guard.” The invention that the service meant to downgrade them to “probably divisive” instantly raised alarms on Capitol Hill.
Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois stated she met with the Coast Guard’s appearing commandant, Adm. Kevin Lunday, to precise her issues and was reassured that the coverage can be clarified.
“He got here by the workplace and warranted us that there’s an across-the-board prohibition on hate symbols, together with swastikas and nooses,” Underwood remarked in a video assertion.
Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington stated in an announcement, Thursday, that “lynching is a federal hate crime. The world defeated the Nazis in 1945. The talk on these symbols is over.” He added, “Coast Guard: be higher.”
By eradicating the “hate incident” designation, the Coast Guard appeared to create a narrower pathway for eradicating racist or extremist imagery from operational services, barracks and different coaching environments. Its new timeline for reporting — requiring victims to return ahead inside 45 days — additionally raised eyebrows over issues it would deter reporting and make enforcement tougher.
In January, President Trump abruptly eliminated Adm. Linda Fagan as commandant only a day after taking workplace, putting Coast Guard management below scrutiny.
What’s the Coast Guard saying now?
In response to the uproar, Lunday issued a forceful assertion simply hours after the coverage grew to become public, asserting that “any show, use or promotion of symbols like nooses and swastikas can be totally investigated and severely punished.”
Later that evening, the service launched a further memo declaring that “divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited” at Coast Guard workplaces — a fair firmer posture. The Coast Guard insisted the brand new memo was not a reversal however fairly a clarification meant to counter “misinformation” and reaffirm the service’s longstanding stance towards extremist imagery.
Nonetheless, management has not defined why earlier steerage explicitly permitted personal shows or eradicated the “hate incident” language altogether.
How do harassment instances work below the brand new framework?
Even with the late clarifications, the underlying mechanics of the directive stay modified in vital methods. As a result of the time period “hate incident” has been retired, shows of extremist symbols will not be robotically categorized as harassment, and commanders must decide whether or not a particular sufferer exists and whether or not the conduct meets the now greater bar of being “extreme or pervasive.”
Investigations and punishment will use a “preponderance of the proof” commonplace — greater than earlier than — and leaders evaluating an incident should contemplate how a hypothetical “affordable particular person” would interpret any alleged misconduct.
The directive does reinforce that any public shows of the Accomplice battle flag stay prohibited, besides in uncommon cases of historic or inventive contexts. And though victims have 45 days to file a harassment report, commanders should notify their chain of command inside 48 hours if an incident sparks potential curiosity from the media or Congress.
The Coast Guard occupies a singular center floor — topic to the Uniform Code of Navy Justice however working below the Division of Homeland Safety fairly than the Protection Division. Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth has been outspoken in his intent to roll again what he views as “woke” personnel insurance policies, together with range initiatives and sure extremism-prevention measures.
