Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Get Lifetime Access

House members press Coast Guard over policy language on swastikas and nooses

Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation (House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure) · December 17, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Ranking members pressed Coast Guard leaders over recent anti‑harassment policy language that members say treats swastikas and nooses as merely 'potentially divisive.' The Coast Guard said it does not tolerate hate symbols and has issued a lawful general order to clarify enforcement; members said the mixed messaging undermines confidence.

Ranking members used opening statements and questioning time in a House Subcommittee hearing to demand clarity after the Coast Guard published anti‑harassment guidance that some members said classified swastikas and nooses as "potentially divisive." Representatives said that language conflicted with prior policy and with the symbolic meaning of nooses.

"Nooses are directly associated with lynching," Ranking Member Larson said in his opening. "I don't know how you can have a potentially divisive symbol of a noose and have lynching be a federal hate crime in The United States."

Members pressed the Coast Guard witnesses for explanations. Rear Admiral David C Bharata responded: "The Coast Guard has not — we do not now, and we won't, tolerate any hate symbols within the Coast Guard. To the extent that instructions have been misinterpreted, or is open to misinterpretation, the commandant looked to close that gap by issuing a lawful general order." Bharata said the general order was intended to remove ambiguity at the unit level and give commanders authority to act.

Representative Carbajal and others said the published policy and the subsequent general order created "two contradictory policies" that could leave service members and confirmation processes uncertain. Members said they would use their questioning time to press for corrections and for the Coast Guard to make its stance unambiguous.

What happens next: members signaled they will continue oversight and ask for follow‑up documentation and clarity from the Coast Guard on the policy language and its enforcement. Witnesses acknowledged the need for clearer communications and said they would work with members on the issue.

(Reporting note: direct quotations above are taken from members' remarks and witness answers during the hearing.)