Rubio stages font coup: Times New Roman ousts Calibri

But.... and this is important, it's not funny.

"Here is a thing that makes a slight difference, with no cost, to a small percentage of people"

"Nah, woke. Let's make it worse for them."

There is nothing funny about performative cruelty

With no cost?

Let's even say (incorrectly, probably) that the switch to Calibri was "performative" or "virtue signaling". That's, in my opinion, significantly less terrible than performative cruelty or anti-virtue signaling.

If you had read the article, you would know the answer to this question.

Calibri is a font designed to be easier to read on screens, which is where documents are primarily read in 2025. Switching to using Calibri as the default was a meaningful change that provided improved accessibility at literally no cost to anyone.

Switching back to Times New Roman, a serif font that is provably more difficult to read on screens is yet another act of performative cruelty by this administration who seemingly operates with "the cruelty is the point" as one of its core tenets.

I'm with John Gruber, who is hardly a fan of this administration:

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/12/10/state-departmen...

"Calibri does convey a sense of casualness — and more so, modernity — that is not appropriate for the U.S. State Department. And I do not buy the argument that Calibri is somehow more accessible for those with low vision or reading disabilities. People with actual accessibility needs should be catered to, but they need more than a sans serif typeface, and their needs should not primarily motivate the choice for the default typeface."

Official departmental paperwork shouldn't look clownish.

This is a performative change.

The change to Calibri was meaningful.

Because Calibri is an easier to read font on screens, which is where a lot more reading is being done.

Since it was done as an accessibility measure, it is seen as something for "inclusion" which is part of the scary "DEI" (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion). So it had to go, because forbid we do something that makes things slightly easier for people.

Performative? The one that you read about. The one that had a press release, the one that had articles on social media that you are commenting on.

Meaningful? The one that looked into which font was more readable, for the most people

The same John Gruber that, quote tweeting a news article about Israel closing off phone and internet services to Gazans, wrote "Fuck around and find out"

Is screen readability the only value to consider?

> If you had read the article

Please read the rules.

Do you have trouble reading Times New Roman? Every computer I used growing up used it in much lower resolution.

> they need more than a sans serif typeface,

Agreed.

So... why are the administration going in the opposite direction?

> Official departmental paperwork shouldn't look clownish.

Oh. It's about looking clownish. Right. OK. Pull up a chair, this might take a while, and we will get to typefaces pretty late on, I'll be honest

> And I do not buy the argument that Calibri is somehow more accessible for those with low vision or reading disabilities

Oh well that settles it, John Gruber doesn’t buy the argument. Wrap it up and let’s head home, folks, this one’s settled, no need to refer to any actual research or evidence.

No, but I’m also not an accessibility expert, so my opinion here’s pretty irrelevant.

I hadn't planned on spending my evening googling the pay grade of government officials, calculating the time taken to change a font on Microsoft Word and extrapolating that over a year.

But I'm game if you are?

Jupyter notebooks or excel?

I'm not talking about monetary cost.