Senate Democrats placed the confirmation of the head of the Coast Guard on hold after a dispute regarding the branch’s hate symbol policies.
Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) announced a freeze on acting Coast Guard Commandant Kevin Lunday’s confirmation on Wednesday, the same week the vote on his confirmation was set to be held. They cited Lunday’s handling of the Coast Guard’s hate speech policies, with Rosen accusing him of going back on his word.
Confusion broke out last month after the Washington Post reported that the Coast Guard removed swastikas and other extremist symbols from its list of hate symbols and recategorized them as “potentially divisive.” After a flurry of criticism, the Coast Guard released a new memorandum clarifying its position, essentially arguing that swastikas and other hate symbols were still banned de facto despite the new change in language.
In a lengthy post on X, Rosen said she spoke to Lunday over the phone after the initial controversy, which revolved around changes in language to the Coast Guard’s hate symbol policies. She said that during the call, he “assured me that, in practice, the Coast Guard continued to consider swastikas and nooses hate symbols and nothing less.” She approvingly noted his follow-up memorandum clarifying the Coast Guard’s nonacceptance of hate symbols.
However, Rosen then said new reporting from the Washington Post showing the implementation of the disputed policy indicated that the acting commandant was going back on his word.
“According to this newest reporting, it seems that Admiral Lunday and the Coast Guard have gone back on their commitment to clearly stating what their policy towards swastikas and nooses is and, instead, have implemented a policy that downgrades the seriousness of these hate symbols,” Rosen wrote. “When this news broke, my team immediately reached out to the Coast Guard to attempt to get clarification as to what had happened, only for the Coast Guard to evade our questions and refuse to give a straight answer.
“As it appears that Admiral Lunday may have backtracked on his commitment to me to combat antisemitism and hate crimes and protect all members of the Coast Guard, I will be placing a hold on his nomination until the Coast Guard provides answers,” she added.
The Coast Guard was quick to respond, saying the freeze was based on “inaccurate and misleading assertions” that “do not reflect the facts.”
“The Coast Guard maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward hate symbols, extremist ideology, and any conduct that undermines our core values,” the Coast Guard’s X account posted. “We prohibit the display or promotion of hate symbols in any form. Any suggestion otherwise is false.
“Our service is built on honor, respect, and devotion to duty. We will maintain a professional maritime fighting force that upholds these values and the sacred trust placed in us by the American people. Allegations of extremism are taken seriously and addressed through established accountability processes grounded in our long-standing civil rights manual, which has not changed, and the Commandant’s policy and lawful order issued on November 20, 2025,” it added, urging the Washington Post to “correct the record.”
The Washington Examiner reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for clarification and comment.
After the controversy began in November, the Coast Guard released a memorandum that “doubles down on its current policies prohibiting the display, distribution or use of hate symbols by Coast Guard personnel.”
The statement portrayed the move not as backtracking from any changes, but as a clarification to combat misinformation.
“The policy and lawful order provides clear definitions, guidance and expectations for Coast Guard personnel. It describes prohibited hate symbols in alignment with military policy,” it reads. “This is not an updated policy but a new policy to combat any misinformation and double down that the U.S. Coast Guard forbids these symbols.”
The original Washington Post report that started the controversy highlighted changes in wording between a document dealing with harassment, released in February 2023, and the subsequent one, released in November 2025. The 2023 document clarified that the “display, presentation, creation, or depiction” of controversial symbols, such as swastikas, “would constitute a potential hate incident.”
The 2025 document removed the hate crime wording but still effectively bans the display or creation of the symbols, as it is perceived as undermining morale and discipline.
“Commanders, commanding officers, officers-in-charge, and supervisors shall inquire into public displays of other potentially divisive symbols or flags and, in consultation with their servicing legal office, may order or direct the removal of those determined to adversely affect good order and discipline, unit cohesion, command climate, morale, or mission effectiveness,” the new document reads.
COAST GUARD ‘DOUBLES DOWN’ ON DESIGNATING SWASTIKAS AS HATE SYMBOLS AFTER CONTROVERSY
The change is addressed on the second page of the new document, which reads, “Conduct previously handled as a potential hate incident, including those involving symbols widely identified with oppression or hatred, is processed as a report of harassment in cases with an identified aggrieved individual, or in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Instruction. The terminology ‘hate incident’ is no longer present in
policy.”
The Coast Guard reverted to wording closer to that of the February 2023 document in the Nov. 20 memorandum but maintained that the key difference that incidents involving the symbols would not be categorized as “hate incidents.”
