A quiet shift has occurred within the Coast Guard, one that’s sparking concern and raising questions about how the service addresses symbols of hate. A recent internal guidance update reveals a deliberate removal of the term “hate incident” from official vocabulary, replaced with the more ambiguous phrase “potentially divisive symbols and flags.”
Previously, the sight of a swastika, a noose, or the Confederate flag within the Coast Guard’s purview would automatically trigger a “potential hate incident” designation. Now, these deeply offensive symbols are simply categorized as potentially causing division. The change, first brought to light by reports, has prompted swift and critical reactions.
Despite the altered terminology, officials insist the Coast Guard’s stance against these symbols remains firm. They claim displays of extremist imagery are still prohibited and will be met with severe consequences. A statement from acting commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday emphatically denied any lessening of resolve, asserting these symbols are “categorically false” to be considered no longer prohibited.
The new guidance specifically bans the public display of the Confederate battle flag in all Coast Guard spaces. Commanders are now instructed to actively inquire about the presence of other “potentially divisive” symbols and have the authority to order their removal if they negatively impact morale or operational readiness. However, the core change – the elimination of “hate incident” as a classification – remains.
The removal of the term isn’t merely semantic. Incidents previously handled as “potential hate incidents” will now be processed solely as harassment reports, requiring an identified victim to proceed. This represents a significant shift in how such events are documented and addressed, potentially lowering the threshold for investigation.
Adding another layer of complexity, the updated policy introduces a 45-day deadline for reporting harassment – excluding sexual harassment – a departure from the previous open-ended timeframe. While some discretion is allowed, the new limit raises concerns about potential underreporting or delayed responses to critical incidents.
The change has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers. Representative Rick Larsen, a leading member of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, issued a strong rebuke, stating there is “no room for debate” over the hateful nature of nooses and swastikas. He urged the Coast Guard to “be better,” emphasizing the historical weight and unambiguous symbolism of these images.
This policy adjustment comes as the Coast Guard undergoes broader organizational changes, aligning itself more closely with other branches of the military and the Department of Homeland Security. The service is actively implementing initiatives to modernize its structure, acquisitions, and technology.
Officials have linked the updates to directives from both former President Trump and the Pentagon, citing a broader effort to review and refine harassment policies across the armed forces. The Pentagon, however, maintains its own strict guidelines prohibiting the display of Confederate flags and swastikas, allowing only officially sanctioned flags.
