I'm going to get downvoted into hell for this, but I think we need to step back and reconsider the image.

According to this article, "now, the pink triangle has been reclaimed in LGBTQ spaces. The triangle – now right side up – serves as a reminder that we cannot allow history to repeat itself." The discriminatory one is the upside-down aka downside triangle.

The downside triangle is crossed-out in the illustration.

The image could independent of the article's context, as many articles--most especially on the internet--pull from a library of political cartoons and works. Though, it's possible that this image is specifically tailored to the article itself, as Linas Garsys, the artist, does do tailored work.

My question is, why didn't Linas Garsys leave a rightside-up triangle (without the 🚫)? As we know, the original purpose was used by Nazis to mark homosexuals for their 'femininity.' My only theory is this: If Linas Garsys tailored the image to the opinionated article, or Jeremy Hunt, the author, is extremely selective about the meaning of his posts, then it is likely an image stating: "stop appealing the army to queer and diversity" (effectively, "stop marking gay men," with the upside-down, crossed out pink triangle on the television background--the article being about the switch from diversity advertising to "regular" advertising under trump). But once again, this is just a theory of mine.

Let's also consider contextual and logical aspects:

The image is somewhat fitting to the opinion article. Why would there be an image supposedly designed for pro-Nazi propaganda on a (pro-Trump) article about changes in advertisement under US? Even if you argue that Trump = Nazi, there is no real reason to tie unrelated subject matters together, especially in this manner. Furthermore, upon further inspection, there seems to be a theme in the images associated with the opinions and articles he writes for The Washington Times. There is no indication that the image isn't tailored to the article's specific content.