By Manisha Sahu | America News World
November 21, 2025
In a move that has sparked national debate, the United States Coast Guard has reportedly decided to remove the Swastika and the noose from its formal list of hate symbols, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post. The update is part of a broader revision of internal guidelines meant to address hazing, harassment, and extremist conduct within the service.
The Swastika—viewed globally as a symbol of Nazi ideology, fascism, and racial hatred—has long been associated with the murder of millions during the Holocaust, including an estimated 400,000 Jews in Nazi Germany. Yet under the revised Coast Guard guidance, the symbol will now be classified not explicitly as a “hate symbol,” but rather as “potentially divisive.” The noose, long associated with racial terror and lynching in American history, has reportedly been categorized in a similar manner.
The new designations come as the Coast Guard continues to revisit and realign its internal conduct policies, aiming to reflect the Trump administration’s broader direction on addressing hazing and harassment across U.S. military branches. Although the Coast Guard operates under the Department of Homeland Security—rather than the US Department of Defense—it frequently coordinates with the armed forces and follows many parallel regulatory frameworks.
A Shift in Approach to Symbols and Conduct
According to officials familiar with the review, the change in categorization does not remove the Coast Guard’s ability to discipline personnel for hateful or extremist behavior. Instead, the new guidelines attempt to distinguish between universally recognized hate imagery and symbols that, while historically weaponized, may have alternative cultural, religious, or contextual uses.
The Swastika, for instance, has ancient origins in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, where it represents prosperity, divinity, and good fortune. Military officials reportedly noted this complexity during policy review discussions, arguing that its meaning varies across cultures. However, critics say that contextual nuance does not erase its modern association with Nazi atrocities and white supremacist ideology, particularly in the United States and Europe.
The noose, on the other hand, has a deeply painful history in America. It became a tool of racial terror during the Jim Crow era, where thousands of Black Americans were lynched in acts meant to enforce white supremacy. Civil rights groups have long argued that any display of a noose within a military or government setting is tantamount to a threat.
By moving these items into a “potentially divisive” category rather than labeling them as hate symbols outright, the Coast Guard has signaled a shift in how it plans to monitor and address conduct. Under the revised system, behavior involving these symbols will be evaluated case-by-case rather than being immediately presumed hateful.
Political Context and Administrative Influence
The Trump administration has emphasized the need for greater clarity and uniformity in military discipline policies, including how symbols, speech, and personal expression are treated under anti-extremism rules. Some administration officials have criticized what they view as overly broad hate-speech restrictions in federal agencies, arguing that such policies can interfere with due process or suppress lawful expression.
In this context, the Coast Guard’s internal review appears to reflect an effort to strike a balance between preventing extremist activity and avoiding categorization that could be interpreted as culturally or religiously insensitive. Critics, however, warn that the shift risks undermining the service’s zero-tolerance posture toward extremist ideology within its ranks.
“This is not about cultural sensitivity; it is about the dangerous re-normalization of symbols long used to intimidate and harm,” said one civil rights advocate, responding to the reports. “The Coast Guard must be cautious that its policies do not inadvertently open doors to extremist behavior.”
Concerns Raised by Advocacy Groups
Jewish advocacy organizations, civil rights groups, and veteran associations reacted sharply following initial reports. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has consistently documented incidents where the Swastika is used as a deliberate tool of hate in the United States, arguing that its predominant modern meaning cannot be separated from its Nazi legacy.
Black advocacy organizations expressed similar concern about the noose, emphasizing that numerous incidents of noose-related harassment have been documented across military bases and federal workplaces over the past decade.
“To call a noose merely ‘divisive’ is to ignore more than a century of racial violence,” a spokesperson for a national civil rights coalition said. “The Coast Guard must ensure its policy does not minimize the trauma attached to this symbol.”
Coast Guard’s Rationale and Response
Though the Coast Guard has not publicly released the full policy documents, officials told reporters that the move does not reduce disciplinary recourse against harassment or extremist behavior. Instead, the guidelines aim to distinguish between the symbol itself and the intent behind its use—placing the emphasis on conduct rather than a predetermined list of banned imagery.
Under the revised guidelines, personnel who display symbols such as the Swastika or a noose in a threatening, hostile, or extremist context would remain subject to immediate disciplinary action, including removal from duty or dismissal. But the new framework also provides space for cultural explanation or accidental display, which some officials argue is necessary in today’s globally diverse military environment.
What Comes Next?
The update has triggered calls for congressional oversight, with lawmakers urging the Coast Guard to clarify how it intends to prevent extremist infiltration and protect service members from hate-based harassment. Several members of Congress have already demanded a briefing.
Military cultural experts say the debate is likely to continue as U.S. institutions grapple with how to regulate symbols that carry drastically different meanings across cultures—a challenge made more complex in an era of rising political polarization.
For now, the Coast Guard maintains that the shift is part of a broader effort to refine anti-harassment policies while ensuring they are legally sound, culturally informed, and operationally enforceable.
But as national reaction makes clear, changing the status of symbols as charged as the Swastika and the noose is certain to remain a topic of intense scrutiny.