Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reversed a Biden-era formatting policy, ordering diplomats to replace Calibri with Times New Roman for official correspondence, framing the change as a move to restore professionalism and push back against what he calls wasteful DEIA initiatives.
Fonts may sound trivial, but the look and tone of official communications matter. Rubio argues that Calibri, adopted under the previous administration, softened the department’s voice and undermined the gravitas expected in diplomatic notes. He has formally instructed a return to Times New Roman to reinforce formality and a unified voice across the department. This decision is presented as part of a wider effort to eliminate unnecessary DEIA programs that he views as performative.
The prior change to Calibri was defended at the time as accessibility-driven, intended to help individuals with low vision and dyslexia by using a wider, simpler font. Rubio does not deny the need for accessibility, but he states the switch did not reduce the number of accessibility-based document remediation cases. For him, the data mattered more than optics; if the accessibility argument did not translate into measurable benefits, the change was unmerited.
Two years ago, Rubio’s predecessor, Antony Blinken, switched to Calibri, a softer, simpler-shaped, and wider font than Times New Roman, in part to assist individuals with certain visual disabilities such as low vision and dyslexia.
“Switching to Calibri achieved nothing except the degradation of the department’s official correspondence,” Rubio wrote in an “action request,” obtained by Reuters and the New York Times.
Rubio’s memo is blunt and unapologetic. He wrote that reverting to Times New Roman will “restore decorum and professionalism to the Department’s written work products and abolish yet another wasteful DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] program.” That phrasing signals a broader Republican stance: roll back policies seen as symbolic or bureaucratic bloat and prioritize clarity and tradition. The change is framed as both practical and symbolic, a small step that signals a different approach to governance.
“Switching to Calibri achieved nothing except the degradation of the department’s official correspondence.”
Rubio added that moving back to Times New Roman would “restore decorum and professionalism to the department’s written work.“
It’s not often you get top level government officials making passionate statements regarding fonts.
There’s a tinge of humor in watching senior officials debate typography, but the debate also reflects deeper disagreements over how government should present itself. For critics of the prior policy, Calibri looked casual against formal letterhead and eroded the solemnity of diplomatic messages. For supporters, the font change was an inclusive measure; for Rubio, inclusion cannot come at the expense of perceived competence and tradition.
Rubio emphasizes that Times New Roman is “generally perceived to connote tradition, formality and ceremony,” while Calibri reads as informal and clashes with official stationery. He ties the typographic standard to the President’s One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations directive, arguing it reinforces a unified, professional voice. By invoking that directive, the decision is positioned not as petty preference but as duty to a consistent national posture.
Beyond prose and letters, this move is being interpreted by some as part of a broader cultural reset. Removing small touches associated with the previous administration’s focus on race, gender, and equity sends a message about priorities. Rubio frames the change as restoring seriousness to diplomatic work, pushing back against policies he considers distractions from core responsibilities.
Detractors will call it symbolism; supporters will call it common sense. Either way, the debate over which font belongs on state letterhead is now public and reflects a larger clash over how government represents itself. For those who believe institutions should project steadiness and ceremony, this is a welcome correction to the tone of official documents.
Add comment