The U.S. Coast Guard has made a sudden reversal, deleting controversial language from its official workplace harassment policy that had described swastikas and nooses as "potentially divisive" symbols. The change, reported by the Washington Post, was announced internally on December 18, 2025.
Policy Reversal Follows Political Pressure
According to the report, the decision to completely remove the disputed phrasing appears directly linked to political intervention. Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) had placed a hold on the nomination of Adm. Kevin Lunday to become the Coast Guard's permanent commandant. Their action was a direct response to their disapproval of the policy's original wording.
In a message to Coast Guard personnel, Adm. Lunday, who is the acting commandant, confirmed the revisions had been "completely removed" from the policy manual. He was quick to add that a separate order he issued in November 2025, which explicitly prohibits swastikas and nooses, "remains in full effect."
Officials and Advocates Respond
The initial policy language had drawn sharp criticism for seemingly downplaying the severity of recognized hate symbols. The Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America had publicly thanked Lunday on December 13 for what they saw as a clear classification of these items as hate symbols, highlighting the tension surrounding the manual's text.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem addressed the controversy on Thursday, December 21. She stated the removed language came from "pages of superseded and outdated policy." Noem asserted the deletion was done to prevent any entity from "misrepresent[ing] the Coast Guard to politicize their policies and lie about their position on divisive and hate symbols." She concluded by calling for an end to the "politicized holdup" of Admiral Lunday's nomination.
A Swift Correction to a Growing Controversy
The episode underscores the sensitive nature of defining hate speech and symbols within institutional policies. The Coast Guard's rapid deletion of the "potentially divisive" descriptor signals an attempt to quell a burgeoning public relations and political issue. By reaffirming the standing prohibition order while stripping out the ambiguous language, the branch aims to clarify its stance without altering the practical ban on the symbols themselves.
The swift action demonstrates how internal policy wording can quickly escalate to a national topic, triggering responses from veterans' groups, senators, and cabinet-level officials, ultimately forcing an immediate administrative correction.
