Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) on Monday introduced legislation to codify a policy in the Coast Guard prohibiting displays of swastikas and other hate symbols, following backlash last week over a new Coast Guard policy that loosened the previous ban on such displays.

Amid bipartisan pressure from Congress and public outcry, the Coast Guard walked back the policy, which would have classified swastikas, nooses and other similar symbols as “potentially divisive” and would not have banned them outright.

Torres’ bill would prohibit the Coast Guard from issuing, without congressional approval, “any guidance that is less restrictive on prohibiting divisive or hate symbols and flags” than the updated policy issued following the public backlash, which partially, although not fully, reinstated the previous policy. The new policy states that “divisive or hate symbols and flags are prohibited,” including swastikas.

The legislation does not specify how “less restrictive” would be defined or determined in practice.

The latest iteration of the Coast Guard’s policy keeps in place changes made to the investigative process for such incidents — previously, they would be subject to a full investigation, now they are subject to a potentially less stringent inquiry by the relevant commanding officer.

Torres’ bill is not likely to move forward in its current form given the unified GOP control of the government.

Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), the co-chairs of the Senate antisemitism task force, wrote to Adm. Kevin Lunday, the acting commandant of the Coast Guard, raising additional questions about policy changes regarding displays of swastikas.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Coast Guard would no longer consider swastikas to be prohibited hate symbols, but rather “potentially divisive.” The policy was walked back — but Lankford and Rosen’s letter asks for details about changes to the investigative process for such incidents, which remain unchanged in the updated policy.

Per the letter, under previous policies, a full investigation was required for displays of a swastika, whereas the new policy requires a potentially less stringent process, an inquiry by the relevant commanding officer.

“In order for the Coast Guard to fully protect those who serve, any inquiry regarding conduct involving imagery historically associated with genocide, terror, and racial subjugation must, at a minimum, be full and transparent to ensure the civil rights of those impacted are protected and conducted in a manner in which victims feel safe to report these incidents,” the lawmakers wrote.

They also said that they “would like to better understand the rationale for why the inquiry process was deemed to be preferable to the investigative process in place in the 2023 and 2019 policies, which had successfully ensured that hate incidents would lead to accountability.”

They thanked Lunday for working with them to “quickly rectify quickly rectify the November 15 policy language reaffirming the Coast Guard’s views that swastikas and nooses are hate symbols, but more must be done to ensure the Coast Guard’s members know that displays or use of these symbols within its ranks or facilities will be swiftly investigated.”

Both senators said they spoke to Lunday on Thursday evening, amid the uproar about the policy change, and said that the updated policy “is a step in the right direction to affirm the Coast Guard’s commitment to maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all its members.”

Lankford is one of just a few Republicans who has spoken out publicly about the controversial Coast Guard policy change.

The 21 members of the House Jewish Caucus — every Jewish Democrat in the chamber — wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to express “extreme alarm and concern” about recent reporting that the Coast Guard would no longer classify the swastika as a hate symbol, and demanded answers about the policy.

Amid backlash, the policy was walked back, according to the Washington Post, and the swastika will remain a prohibited hate symbol rather than be classified as “potentially divisive.”

“While we are pleased that the Coast Guard quickly reversed course and reaffirmed that these are hate symbols, we remain deeply troubled that such a change was ever considered in the first place,” the lawmakers, led by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA), said. “This kind of reversal, only made after media attention and public outrage, raises urgent questions about how and why this policy was allowed to advance.”

They requested the administration provide, by Nov. 26, an explanation of how the policy was initiated including who authorized, discussed and approved it from DHS, the White House and the Pentagon.

The lawmakers said that “lowering America’s moral standards” will hurt both service members and recruiting efforts, as well as “sends a dangerous and unmistakable message that this administration is willing to tolerate, or worse, excuse, the display of symbols rooted in hate.”

The Jewish Caucus members said that the change and its intent in the leaked policy memo was clear, pushing back on claims from the administration that reporting on the policy had been misleading or inaccurate.

“Your department made an intentional change to downgrade these symbols from being classified as hate symbols to merely ‘potentially divisive,’” the letter reads.