The U.S. Coast Guard moved quickly to clarify a personnel directive after critics raised alarms that it would relax how the service treats displays of hate symbols such as swastikas and nooses. The disputed guidance, signed Nov. 13 by Rear Admiral Charles Fosse, proposed language changes that opponents said could limit enforcement and narrow protections for targeted personnel.
What changed in the draft guidance?
The directive, titled 'Harassing Behavior Prevention, Response and Accountability,' proposed several notable shifts in how the Coast Guard defines and responds to hateful or extremist imagery:
- It removed the specific label 'hate incident' and recategorized some conduct as harassment — but only when a particular victim could be identified.
- It described certain images previously called out explicitly (nooses, swastikas, Confederate iconography) as 'potentially divisive' rather than as clear examples of hatred or prejudice.
- The draft raised the threshold for disciplinary action, indicating that public displays of extremist symbols would be misconduct only if they demonstrably harmed 'good order and discipline, unit cohesion, command climate, morale or mission effectiveness.'
- It allowed symbols 'widely identified with oppression or hatred' to be displayed in private or non-public settings, including military housing.
- Gender identity was omitted from the list of protected characteristics in the draft, aligning the service with recent policy changes affecting transgender service members.
- The guidance required that harassment be 'severe or pervasive' and assessed from the perspective of a 'reasonable person.' It also included language suggesting hazing can, in some cases, serve a 'proper military or other governmental purpose.'
Lawmakers, advocates and internal response
Longstanding Coast Guard policy had drawn a bright line against extremist symbols, stating that items like nooses and swastikas 'have no place' in the service. When media reports highlighted the new wording, lawmakers and civil-rights groups expressed immediate concern.
Representative Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) said she met with Acting Commandant Admiral Kevin Lunday and was reassured that there is an 'across-the-board prohibition on hate symbols, including swastikas and nooses.' Representative Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) called the apparent softening unacceptable, noting the clear historical and legal context for treating such symbols as hate-related.
Within hours of the draft becoming public, Admiral Lunday issued a statement promising that 'any display, use or promotion of symbols like nooses and swastikas will be thoroughly investigated and severely punished.' The Coast Guard then released a follow-up memo declaring that divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited at Coast Guard workplaces, and framed that memo as a clarification intended to counter misinformation.
What remains unresolved
Even after the clarifying memos, several substantive aspects of the directive remain changed or ambiguous. With the retirement of the 'hate incident' label, displays of extremist imagery are no longer automatically treated as hate-based misconduct; commanders must determine whether a specific victim exists and whether the behavior meets the 'severe or pervasive' threshold. Investigations and disciplinary decisions will use a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, which some critics say could make enforcement more difficult. The directive also sets a 45-day window for victims to file harassment reports and requires commanders to notify their chain of command within 48 hours if an incident draws media or congressional interest.
Context and implications
The Coast Guard occupies a unique role among U.S. services: it is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice but operates under the Department of Homeland Security. The debate over the directive intersects with broader discussions inside the federal government about how to balance unit cohesion, free expression, and protections against harassment and hate. Supporters of tougher standards argue that clearer rules are needed to preserve discipline and mission readiness; opponents contend that watering down explicit prohibitions risks creating unsafe or hostile environments for vulnerable service members.
As the Coast Guard finalizes its policy language, leaders face pressure to reconcile commanders’ need for discretion with the demand from lawmakers and civil-rights groups for explicit, enforceable prohibitions on symbols that have historically been used to intimidate and threaten.
