The U.S. Coast Guard on Thursday deleted language from its new workplace harassment policy that had downgraded the definition of swastikas and nooses from overt hate symbols to “potentially divisive,” an abrupt turnaround after the more lenient interpretation of those items was allowed to take effect this week despite objections from Congress.
In a message to all Coast Guard personnel, Adm. Kevin Lunday, the service’s acting commandant, said those revisions had been “completely removed” from the policy manual. The document, a copy of which was reviewed by the Washington Post, now shows a large black bar obscuring the relevant chapter in its table of contents and a message directing readers to a separate manual outlining the Coast Guard’s civil rights policies.
Lunday’s message also says that a separate directive he issued last month prohibiting swastikas and nooses “remains in full effect.”
The sudden turn of events appeared to satisfy Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) and Jacky Rosen (D., Nev.), who said after Lunday’s announcement that they had lifted their holds on his nomination to become the service’s full-time commandant. Both cited their disapproval of the new policy when explaining earlier this week why they had taken such measures.
Lunday’s announcement caps a tumultuous few weeks within the Coast Guard, following Washington Post reports detailing the service’s plan to include the incendiary language within its new workplace harassment manual, its vow to reverse course in the face of widespread criticism, and the wording’s surprising retention as the new manual took effect earlier this week.
In response to the Post’s initial reporting in late November, Lunday issued an order condemning and categorically prohibiting swastikas and nooses, and said then that his directive would supersede any other policy language. But for reasons that remain unclear, Lunday’s order was never incorporated.
Two people familiar with the policy manual overhaul said this week that the Coast Guard, which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, wanted to strike the “potentially divisive” wording from the document but was unable to do so. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the contentious situation.
The Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy was an early focus of Lunday’s after the Trump administration, upon entering office in January, fired his predecessor, Adm. Linda Fagan — the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military. In announcing Fagan’s removal, officials cited among other things her “excessive focus” on diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Within days, Lunday ordered the suspension of the policy manual that, among its other guidance, said explicitly that the swastika was among a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.” Nooses and the Confederate flag also matched that description under the previous policy. Lunday was later nominated by Trump to lead the service as its commandant.
In a statement announcing that she had lifted her hold on his nomination, Rosen said she had put another on Sean Plankey, Trump’s nominee to be the director of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and “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.” She also chastised leadership within the Coast Guard and at DHS who, she said, had been “evasive, misleading, and elusive” as lawmakers sought assurances the “potentially divisive” wording would be cut from the policy manual.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem said in a social media post earlier Thursday that the language was being removed from the manual “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.”
Neither DHS nor the Coast Guard has addressed questions seeking to understand whether Lunday, as acting commandant, was empowered to change the manual’s wording on his own or if DHS leadership had to approve it.
The lack of action, particularly amid a rise in antisemitism, incensed an array of lawmakers, including Republicans, who said Lunday had pledged to them that the “potentially divisive” wording would be removed from the policy manual before it went into effect.
Several expressed anger at the existence of an official U.S. government document defining swastikas, inseparable from the extermination of millions of Jews in World War II, and nooses, a symbol of racial hatred, as “potentially divisive.”
Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) was among those who registered disapproval with what his office called the Coast Guard’s “conflicting policies.” A GOP aide said Lankford took his concerns directly to the Trump administration and urged officials to change the manual.
