Lawmakers criticize Coast Guard policy language on swastikas and nooses; service says it will clarify enforcement

Several members of the House subcommittee raised sharp objections to newly published Coast Guard policy language that they said treated swastikas and nooses as merely "potentially divisive." Representative Larson said he was "very disappointed" and said the symbols "are hateful" and should not be characterized as potentially divisive. Representative Carbajal and others repeated similar concerns during opening statements and questioning.

Rear Admiral David C. Barata, appearing for the Coast Guard, repeatedly told the committee the service does not tolerate hate symbols. "The coast guard has not — we do not now, and we won't — tolerate any hate symbols within the coast guard," he said, adding that where policy language could be misinterpreted the commandant issued a lawful general order to close gaps and provide unit commanders the necessary tools to enforce prohibitions.

Members pressed whether the commandant’s subsequent general order and the published policy create contradictory guidance; several members called for the language to be clarified or withdrawn. Representative Carbajal said the dichotomy — prohibiting the display while labeling it potentially divisive — was incomprehensible to him and warranted action.

Several members used their time on unrelated topic areas to reiterate the point, making the dispute one of the most contentious parts of the hearing. The Coast Guard told the committee it would enforce prohibitions against hate symbols and would work to clarify implementation at the unit level. Committee members said they would continue oversight and indicated they might seek further actions or clarifying guidance.

The hearing record includes requests for follow‑up on this and other topics and remains open for supplemental materials for 15 days.