After pressure from Capitol Hill — including a blockade by Democratic senators of the confirmation of the Coast Guard commandant — the Coast Guard struck from its disciplinary policies language describing swastikas and nooses as “potentially divisive,” rather than as explicitly banned hate symbols.

The Washington Post initially reported that the language around displays of such symbols would be changed last month, prompting bipartisan outrage from Capitol Hill. Though Department of Homeland Security officials denied the changes, acting Coast Guard commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday issued new guidance to clarify that such displays were still banned hate symbols and repeatedly reassured lawmakers as such.

Yet, this week, the Post reported that the “potentially divisive” language had gone into effect anyway, prompting another wave of confusion and outrage from Capitol Hill, with some lawmakers accusing Lunday of misleading them. Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said they would block Lunday’s confirmation in response to the latest change, and some Republicans expressed frustration at the continued flip-flopping and sought answers from DHS.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem denied any wrongdoing and attacked critics, but said Thursday on X, “The pages of superseded and outdated policy will be completely removed from the record so no press outlet, entity or elected official may misrepresent the Coast Guard to politicize their policies and lie about their position on divisive and hate symbols.”

Noem’s description of the “superceded and outdated policy” appears to refer to the “potentially divisive” language, but the language of policy now on the books remains unclear. 

The Post reported that the Guard had indeed deleted the language downgrading swastikas and nooses from hate symbols to “potentially divisive,” and that the Coast Guard manual now includes a black bar covering the relevant portion of its table of contents and a reference to a separate civil rights manual.

Noem claimed that new Coast Guard policies, in addition to the Coast Guard’s existing civil rights manual, “strengthens our ability to report, investigate, and prosecute those who violate longstanding policy,” and that the updated policy and order issued by Lunday last month “double[d] down on that language and further clarif[ied] the display of divisive and hate symbols and flags prohibited as a violation of Coast Guard policy and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had raised concerns that the updated policy issued by Lunday weakened investigative and accountability procedures for displays of swastikas as compared to the previous policy.

Noem dismissed critics as promulgating a “demonstrably false story.”

The secretary’s announcement came after Rosen and Duckworth placed holds on Lunday’s confirmation, which was expected to be finalized this week, over the policy. Noem demanded an end to these delays and Lunday’s prompt confirmation.

The latest developments were sufficient reassurance for the two Democrats to announce they would be lifting their holds.

But Rosen said she’ll be placing a hold on another DHS nominee in a bid for accountability going forward. 

“While I continue to have reservations about the process by which this happened and the confusion created by leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, I am pleased to see that the policy now directly refers to stronger language against swastikas and nooses,” Rosen said in a statement. “For this reason, I will be lifting my hold on Acting Commandant Kevin Lunday. I appreciate his lifetime of service to our country and look forward to working with him to continue to strengthen anti-harassment policy at the Coast Guard.”

To ensure the “ongoing implementation of the policy,” Rosen said she’d place a hold on Sean Plankey, nominated to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, who is currently overseeing the Coast Guard in a role at DHS.

“I will keep that hold in place until we see that this new policy works to protect our men and women in uniform from racist and antisemitic harassment,” Rosen said.

She also said that some at the Coast Guard and DHS have been “evasive, misleading, and elusive” about the policies being put in place since the scandal first began, and that there was “absolutely no valid reason” to alter existing policy in the first place.

She also highlighted that even after the Coast Guard initially agreed last month to drop the “potentially divisive” language, the new policy included changes that “would’ve weakened the Coast Guard’s standards and potentially allowed swastikas and nooses to be displayed.”

Duckworth said, “Swastikas and nooses are divisive symbols of hate. No gray area. No debate. Admiral Lunday told me he agreed with this statement — so it made absolutely no sense that the Coast Guard policy ever said otherwise. With this policy reversed, I will lift my hold.”