US Coast Guard is denying report about swastikas

[Nittersing]

Link to tweet

“The claims that the U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses or other extremist imagery as prohibited symbols are categorically false. These symbols have been and remain prohibited in the Coast Guard per policy. Any display, use or promotion of such symbols, as always, will be thoroughly investigated and severely punished. The Coast Guard remains unwavering in its commitment to fostering a safe, respectful and professional workplace. Symbols such as swastikas, nooses and other extremist or racist imagery violate our core values and are treated with the seriousness they warrant under current policy.”

– Admiral Kevin Lunday, Acting Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard

[Cattledog]

1. WAPO reporting differently

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/20/coast-guard-swastika-noose/

[intheflow]

7. That's right, and we know for a fact they're committed to telling the truth.

Of course, it's the "truth" according to Bezos, so... why are you reading the Post again?

[BlueKota]

2. I no longer believe anything that comes out off

the mouth of anyone working fot the current administration.

[a kennedy]

3. Ya just can't THEY ALL LIE!!!! I'm sure it's a requirement for even being hired.

🤬 🤬 🤬

[Chemical Bill]

12. I assume that means Bezos too.... n/t

[Cha]

4. I Hope So!! I Take Back Everything I Said..

About The US Coast Guard, then.

TY It looks Legit.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. This is good to know

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Comparing July 2019 and current language:

The following is a non-exhaustive list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident: a noose, a swastika, supremacist symbols, Confederate symbols or flags, and anti Semitic symbols, among many others.
...
The CO/OIC must also decide on appropriate action, if any, including situations where the conduct or speech may not be a hate incident but nevertheless could be divisive or disruptive to command climate and unit cohesion.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/21/2002134212/-1/-1/0/CIM_5350_4D.pdf

So in July 2019, "hate incidents" were clearly worse than "divisive", and a swastika was among the defining displays for a hate incident.

November 2025:

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.
...
PUBLIC DISPLAY OF DIVISIVE SYMBOLS AND FLAGS
....
This does not include private spaces outside of public view, such as family housing.
...
Potentially divisive symbols and flags include, but are not limited to, the following: a noose, a swastika, and any symbols or flags co-opted or adopted by hate-based groups as representations of supremacy, racial or religious intolerance, or other bias.

https://media.defense.gov/2025/nov/14/2003820615/-1/-1/0/CI_5350_6A.pdf

So there has to be "an identified aggrieved individual" for it to rise to "harassment", and swastikas in family housing are fine. Motherfuckers.

[haele]

8. Yup, the Conservatives have always disagreed with defining "Hate Speech"...

Calling a White Man a "Dumb Cracker" has got to be worse
- than "just flexing" that visible 5" swastika tattoo on your bicep as you clench your fist at that uppity black or teenager walking on the sidewalk continues to approach instead of stepping aside and touching their forehead as you pass.
Poor snowflake conservatives - how dare anyone speak truth to power at them and not put up with them punching down on the Untermenchen.

[Prairie_Seagull]

9. Is the reason for this coming up

right now an or some aggrieved individual/s?. When in the US Navy, they owned my ass. Hoist this issue to the SC of the USA. Serious First amendment fight ahead possibly. I don't think this will abate easily.

Admittedly I might be assuming facts not in evidence. ha

[ThoughtCriminal]

10. It seems like this is a non-denial denial

The symbols may still be prohibited, but they are not denying that they changed the category from "Hate" to "Divisive".

[W_HAMILTON]

11. Exactly this.

[Cherrycheeks]

13. Ok..

We believe them. Not!