After pressure from Capitol Hill — including a blockade by Democratic senators of the confirmation of the Coast Guard commandant — the Coast Guard struck from its disciplinary policies language describing swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive,” rather than as explicitly banned hate symbols.

The Washington Post initially reported that the language around displays of such symbols would be changed last month, prompting bipartisan outrage from Capitol Hill. Though Department of Homeland Security officials denied the changes, acting Coast Guard commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday issued new guidance to clarify that such displays were still banned hate symbols and repeatedly reassured lawmakers as such.

Yet, this week, the Post reported that the “potentially divisive” language had gone into effect anyway, prompting another wave of confusion and outrage from Capitol Hill, with some lawmakers accusing Lunday of misleading them. Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said they would block Lunday’s confirmation in response to the latest change, and some Republicans expressed frustration at the continued flip-flopping and sought answers from DHS.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem denied any wrongdoing and attacked critics, but said Thursday on X, “The pages of superseded and outdated policy will be completely removed from the record so no press outlet, entity or elected official may misrepresent the Coast Guard to politicize their policies and lie about their position on divisive and hate symbols.”

Noem’s description of the “superceded and outdated policy” appears to refer to the “potentially divisive” language, but the language of policy now on the books remains unclear. 

The Post reported that the Guard had indeed deleted the language downgrading swastikas and nooses from hate symbols to “potentially divisive,” and that the Coast Guard manual now includes a black bar covering the relevant portion of its table of contents and a reference to a separate civil rights manual.

Noem claimed that new Coast Guard policies, in addition to the Coast Guard’s existing civil rights manual, “strengthens our ability to report, investigate, and prosecute those who violate longstanding policy,” and that the updated policy and order issued by Lunday last month “double[d] down on that language and further clarif[ied] the display of divisive and hate symbols and flags prohibited as a violation of Coast Guard policy and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had raised concerns that the updated policy issued by Lunday weakened investigative and accountability procedures for displays of swastikas as compared to the previous policy.

Noem dismissed critics as promulgating a “demonstrably false story.”

The secretary’s announcement came after Rosen and Duckworth placed holds on Lunday’s confirmation, which was expected to be finalized this week, over the policy. Noem demanded an end to these delays and Lunday’s prompt confirmation.

The latest developments were sufficient reassurance for the two Democrats to announce they would be lifting their holds.

But Rosen said she’ll be placing a hold on another DHS nominee in a bid for accountability going forward. 

“While I continue to have reservations about the process by which this happened and the confusion created by leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, I am pleased to see that the policy now directly refers to stronger language against swastikas and nooses,” Rosen said in a statement. “For this reason, I will be lifting my hold on Acting Commandant Kevin Lunday. I appreciate his lifetime of service to our country and look forward to working with him to continue to strengthen anti-harassment policy at the Coast Guard.”

To ensure the “ongoing implementation of the policy,” Rosen said she’d place a hold on Sean Plankey, nominated to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who is currently overseeing the Coast Guard in a role at DHS.

“I will keep that hold in place until we see that this new policy works to protect our men and women in uniform from racist and antisemitic harassment,” Rosen said.

She also said that some at the Coast Guard and DHS have been “evasive, misleading, and elusive” about the policies being put in place since the scandal first began, and that there was “absolutely no valid reason” to alter existing policy in the first place.

She also highlighted that even after the Coast Guard initially agreed last month to drop the “potentially divisive” language, the new policy included changes that “would’ve weakened the Coast Guard’s standards and potentially allowed swastikas and nooses to be displayed.”

Duckworth said, “Swastikas and nooses are divisive symbols of hate. No gray area. No debate. Admiral Lunday told me he agreed with this statement — so it made absolutely no sense that the Coast Guard policy ever said otherwise. With this policy reversed, I will lift my hold.”

A spokesperson for Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a co-chair of the Senate antisemitism task force, told Jewish Insider on Wednesday that the Coast Guard had assured Lankford in recent weeks that the service would be correcting its policy to make clear that swastikas would be banned — before reverting this week to a policy that had prompted criticism from Lankford and other lawmakers.

Lankford and antisemitism task force co-chair Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) spoke to Coast Guard commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday last month after initial reports that the service would begin classifying swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive” rather than explicitly banned hate symbols. The Coast Guard has now reverted back to describing the symbols as “potentially divisive,” The Washington Post revealed on Tuesday.

“This is not complicated,” the spokesperson said late Wednesday. “The senator was provided assurances that the policy was corrected and there is no reason why there should be conflicting policies in place. Hate symbols have no place in America or in the Coast Guard.”

Earlier in the day Wednesday, Lankford told JI he was working to connect with the Coast Guard to clarify the situation. He said he’d had several conversations with Lunday, as recently as last week, and was “surprised that this is still an issue” because Lunday had been “exceptionally clear with where the Coast Guard policy actually is, that swastikas [are] absolutely prohibited, a noose would be prohibited. He’s been very, very, very clear on it.”

He said that Lunday had been very responsive to his questions and was clear that “we would never, ever allow anything like that to be able to exist, because that’s divisive and we consider it absolute hate.”

Few other Republicans have spoken out publicly about the latest policy change. One exception has been Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), a co-chair of the House antisemitism task force, who said that Lunday will need to answer for the change.

“Now that we know this is policy, it shows complete tone-deafness on the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security,” Bacon said. “In light of the horrific events at Bondi Beach and as a chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, I will continue to stand against antisemitism in all forms. Admiral Lunday will have to clarify his Nov. 20 memo condemning this policy in light of the now-enacted policy from the Commandant at his upcoming confirmation hearing.”

Lunday, currently serving in an acting capacity, had a confirmation hearing in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee in November and was reported favorably out of that committee, but at least two Senate Democrats have placed holds on Lunday’s confirmation, which was expected for a vote this week, according to The Washington Post.

Weeks after the Coast Guard commandant personally called lawmakers to reassure them that swastikas and nooses would remain banned hate symbols within the service, the Guard quietly broke its pledge and diminished the severity of such displays as “potentially divisive” instead — the very language that had prompted outrage from lawmakers and the Jewish community.

Leading Democrats erupted in outrage on the news of the Coast Guard’s policy shift, while Republicans have thus far largely been silent.

The Washington Post first broke the news about the Coast Guard’s changed policy on hate symbols.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wrote a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, under whose jurisdiction the Coast Guard falls, to demand the policy be reversed immediately.

“It is now clear that the Coast Guard had no intention of backing down, and today they quietly allowed this abhorrent policy to go into effect,” Blumenthal said. “This edict besmirches the Coast Guard’s honor, and DHS should be ashamed.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said in a statement that the policy “must be reversed immediately.”

“Allowing racism and antisemitism to fester in our armed forces is wrong, harmful to our military readiness, and makes all of us less safe. Americans across the country were disgusted when news about this proposed change broke last month. I had hoped the Trump Administration was sufficiently shamed into backtracking when it called that reporting an ‘absolute ludicrous lie and unequivocally false,’” Kaine said. “By moving forward with this absurdly dangerous policy, it’s clear this Administration will stop at nothing to reach a new low.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) called the policy “indefensible” and “a stain on our country” at a time of rising antisemitism.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said the administration should be “ashamed for downplaying the meaning of these symbols.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), a co-chair of the House antisemitism task force, said on Wednesday that the policy “shows complete tone-deafness on the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.”

“In light of the horrific events at Bondi Beach and as a Chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, I will continue to stand against antisemitism in all forms. Admiral Lunday will have to clarify his Nov 20 memo condemning this policy in light of the now-enacted policy from the Commandant at his upcoming confirmation hearing,” Bacon continued.

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who introduced a House bill that aimed to codify the existing Coast Guard policy on the issue, expressed outrage at the reversal.

“The shocking news from the Coast Guard exposes a crisis of conscience enabled by the Trump administration’s stunning lack of moral clarity,” Torres told Jewish Insider. “Their move to downgrade swastikas and nooses to merely ‘potentially divisive’ was an absurd and disgraceful betrayal of every servicemember. We must pass my legislation immediately to codify a zero-tolerance ban and permanently crush this institutional bigotry.”

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a co-chair of the House antisemitism task force who signed a joint statement with fellow co-chairs in response to the initial change, told JI that the administration had lied when it said it would be correcting the policy.

“Antisemitism in all forms is unacceptable. The Trump Administration lied right to the American people’s faces when they indicated last month that they weren’t going through with this policy change,” Stevens said. “Downgrading the seriousness of hate symbols like swastikas and nooses — whether in the Coast Guard or any other arm of the U.S. government — is despicable and unacceptable. I will always stand with the Jewish community and fight back against attempts to delegitimize the evil of antisemitism and hate in our country.”

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), also a task force co-chair, told JI that the Coast Guard itself acknowledged that the swastika should not be accepted.

“As the Coast Guard previously acknowledged in initially reversing this terrible decision, these are quintessential symbols of hate, not ‘divisive symbols’ or abstract icons,” Goldman said. “The Coast Guard’s policy change is either blatant discriminatory or pure incompetence. It must be reversed.”

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), another task force co-chair, also highlighted that the Coast Guard had broken its word to lawmakers.

“Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Coast Guard told lawmakers it would reverse this policy. Now, they are doubling down on it,” Meng told JI. “Swastikas and nooses are not just ‘potentially divisive.’ They are symbols of hate, and their harassment policy should reflect that. There is no question that this decision should be reversed immediately.”

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), upon being told about the reversal, said that the change is “outrageous” and noted that — given the recent publicity — the issue is now known to the “highest levels” of the administration.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, emphasized that Coast Guard officials had come to the Hill last month to reassure lawmakers that the policy would not be implemented.

“It is abundantly clear an antisemite and racist in the Trump Administration is forcing this policy to be in place,” Nadler said. “This reprehensible decision must be reversed.”

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) said in a statement the latest policy change contradicted the “explicit message” of the Coast Guard just weeks ago.

“The confusion and contradiction that surrounds this debacle needs to be fixed completely and comprehensively, without any legalese,” Courtney continued. “The sacred reputation of the Coast Guard is at stake with this fiasco, and for the sake of its reputation and future standing, I join my other House colleagues in imploring Coast Guard leadership to act swiftly.”

The Anti-Defamation League said that the policy is “unacceptable” and that “the Coast Guard should immediately fix this policy and make clear that hate has no place in our military.”

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.