The Brief

Tears welling in her eyes, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan paused mid-sentence to calm herself on the Assembly floor.

Almost a century ago, the Nazis forced her grandmother to flee Austria, leaving behind her great-great-grandmother who died in the Holocaust, the Jewish Democrat from San Ramon told her fellow lawmakers. Last year, she said, her daughter told her that the bathrooms at her school had been vandalized with swastikas.

“My children deserve to show up at school and not have to face hate crimes in their building, to face the symbols that represented the end of their relatives,” she said.

Stories like hers, as well as Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, prompted California’s Jewish lawmakers to make countering antisemitism in schools their top priority this year. They sought to create a list of words and ideas that could not be mentioned in classrooms, including heavily disputed claims about Israel. The effort sparked the biggest, most emotional legislative fight of the year: Should the government regulate what can be taught in schools? If so, how far should it go?

At issue was Assembly Bill 715, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law this month after it went through multiple major, sometimes last-minute rewrites during months of political tussling.

Champions have argued the law will protect Jewish students from rising bullying and discrimination, sometimes from teachers. While the state does not collect data on antisemitism in schools, reports of anti-Jewish bias statewide have doubled between 2021 and 2024, according to the California Department of Justice. Last year, more than 15% of all hate crime events in California were anti-Jewish, even though Jewish people make up about 3% of the state population.

“We cannot hide from the profoundly unfortunate truth that Jewish kids are being isolated, made to feel unwelcome, and verbally and physically attacked. And far too often, our schools are failing to protect them,” Assemblymember Rick Zbur, a Los Angeles Democrat and co-author of the bill, said during a May hearing, when the bill started as merely a promise to curb antisemitism in schools.

Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur speaks to lawmakers during an Assembly floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Oct. 1, 2024.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

By July, it had undergone a major overhaul, including determining that any instruction that “directly or indirectly deny Israel’s right to exist,” equating Israelis with Nazis, or disrespecting “the historical, cultural, or religious significance of Israel to the Jewish people” would count as creating an “antisemitic learning environment.” It reinvigorated debates over whether criticism of Israel’s founding, or even the belief that Jewish people should have an independent country in their ancient homeland, counts as antisemitic — something Jewish thinkers do not agree on.

Mainstream Jewish groups maintain that anti-Zionism, a broad term that generally opposes the idea of a standalone state with a Jewish-majority population, is antisemitic. Many Jewish academics, however, don’t think it is antisemitic on its own, but they agree that blaming individual Jews for the actions taken by the Israeli government is antisemitic.

That July version of the bill drew heavy opposition from a vast coalition of education groups, from teachers unions to school boards, civil rights advocates and Muslim community organizations, who feared censorship of pro-Palestinian voices and infringement upon academic freedom. They would remain opposed through its many iterations, and many of them urged Newsom to veto it.

Their concerns lingered even as the bill was ultimately watered down in the final days of this year’s legislative session to address bias more broadly: The final version no longer mentions the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bars using professional development materials that violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws. It also requires “factually accurate” instruction that is free of “advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship” — a controversial element the bill’s authors said they ran out of time to tackle and promised to “clean up” next year.

“In its current form, this bill only reinforces broader national trends of silencing constitutionally protected speech, erasing historically relevant curriculum, and persecuting anyone who expresses even the slightest opposition to the federal administration,” said Assemblymember Robert Garcia, a freshman Democratic lawmaker from Rancho Cucamonga and former teacher and school board member, who ultimately abstained from voting on the measure.

The squabble over the bill was messy, marked by hundreds of attendees, hourslong hearings, and accusations of bad faith from both sides. Bauer-Kahan called a teachers union advocate who opposed the bill antisemitic. After the bill passed out of the Legislature, a handful of pro-Palestinian activists protested from the Assembly gallery for more than an hour, yelling: “You will all have blood on your hands!”

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan speaks in support of SCR 135, which would designate May 6, 2024 as California Holocaust Memorial Day on the Assembly floor at the state Capitol in Sacramento on April 29, 2024.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

The tension highlights the discomfort for California Democrats, who, despite having traditionally defended Israel, have had to reckon with a base growing increasingly critical of Israel. They faced a tough choice: Support the bill and risk upsetting some of the most powerful labor allies as well as their pro-Palestinian constituents, or oppose the bill and risk being labeled as antisemitic or unwilling to combat antisemitism. Amid the pressure, some Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill even as they warned it could be used to censor free speech. Others abstained instead of taking a side.

“I'm actually surprised that California state legislators would want to even touch it, because it's just so radioactive right now,” said Kim Nalder, a political science professor at Sacramento State University. “It just feels like at this political moment, we want to lower the temperature, not shine a spotlight on ways in which we might target each other.”

The issue was such a hot potato that many lawmakers avoided tackling it early in the legislative process, when policy differences are often ironed out, said Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a freshman progressive Democrat from Pasadena who chairs the Senate Education Committee. When the bill arrived in her committee in June, it still had no substantive language. Some lawmakers told her to not touch it either, while others left it up to her to “take care of it,” she said.

“The ball got thrown to me,” she told CalMatters. "And people knew that they were doing that."

'People would end up being very angry on both sides'

California’s Jewish lawmakers introduced the bill in response to intensifying clashes in schools and college campuses nationwide over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza. For some Democrats, the timing couldn’t have been worse.

The Gaza war has forced a tidal shift within the Democratic base, as voters’ support for Israel’s military campaign tanked over the past two years. That has forced some Democrats, even moderates who have historically backed Israel, to condemn the country and pull away from pro-Israel donors. Young Democrats are also more critical of Israel than their older peers, so any vote that could be perceived as silencing pro-Palestinian voices is risky.

“A very strong part of Democratic and leftist values that we are seeing expressed now is anti-genocide or anti-war,” Nalder said. “(For) my students who are politically active, this is one of the chief issues that they care about.”

The bill also came as President Donald Trump ordered immigration agents to arrest student activists critical of the Israeli government and withheld billions of dollars in funding from universities for their alleged failure to protect Jewish students. At least half a dozen other state Legislatures sought to fight antisemitism in schools this year, with some adopting a highly disputed definition of antisemitism in state education codes. Enraged, some opponents accused California Democrats of taking a page out of Trump’s playbook.

But the Democratic lawmakers had to balance all that with the risk of upsetting the Jewish community, a key voting block. A no vote could be construed as antisemitic, making the lawmaker vulnerable to challenges in the next election, Nalder said.

The bill was the sole priority of the 18-member California Legislative Jewish Caucus, which is composed entirely of Democrats and led by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel of Encino and Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, who chair the budget committees in their respective chambers.

Neither would speak with CalMatters about what happened with the bill. Gabriel’s office did not respond to several CalMatters emails seeking an interview, whereas Wiener declined to comment, pointing CalMatters to the bill authors instead.

David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee, which sponsored the bill, said the caucus’ backing was crucial.

“The Jewish caucus was able to leverage their influence and respect with their colleagues and effectively represent the Jewish community’s needs,” he said.

Pérez acknowledged the political challenge, telling CalMatters she would have preferred to hold the bill until next year, but said legislative leaders had promised to deliver a bill the governor could sign this year. She said some colleagues told her it was “an impossible situation” to navigate.

“They felt like there was no winning,” she said. “Regardless of what they would try to do to make amendments to it … people would end up being very angry on both sides.”

A debate over academic freedom

The clash over AB 715 is the latest episode of yearslong strife over how to teach about marginalized communities in California’s K-12 schools and who should be included.

In past years, the fight primarily focused on ethnic studies — a mandatory high school course on the history and culture of groups such as Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans and Native Americans. The state adopted a model curriculum in 2021, after years of fine-tuning amid disputes over which ethnic minority groups to teach about and criticism from Jewish advocates, who accused past versions of being antisemitic.

Jewish lawmakers championed a bill earlier this year that aimed to tackle antisemitism by restricting the ethnic studies curriculum, but the effort was stopped early in its tracks, and legislators turned to AB 715 instead.

“This is a bill about protecting Jewish students, and it shouldn't have been controversial,” said Bocarsly, of JPAC. “If we don't teach empathy and understand it, we're going to build a generation of intolerance, and that's what we're trying to correct for.”

He said AB 715 was “the hardest political fight in JPAC’s history” and that the initial definition of an antisemitic learning environment was only meant to offer teachers guidance.

But opponents had two major concerns: that the bill’s initial definition of antisemitic learning environment risked silencing discord about Israel, and that even in its final watered-down version it could chill free speech and open teachers up to lawsuits for teaching about anything controversial.

“Jews are most safe when democracy flourishes, when pluralism flourishes, not when rights are taken away,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association and a Jewish father to three children who attend public schools.

A classroom at a high school in Imperial County on Dec. 12, 2023.

(

Kristian Carreon

/

CalMatters

)

What’s safe for Jews was itself a matter of disagreement among the bill’s backers and dissenters. Bocarsly said CTA leadership’s opposition to every version of the bill shows that they “have little interest in supporting a bill that would protect Jewish students.”

Goldberg, in an interview, called that accusation “a lot of chutzpah, frankly.”

The fact the bill even tried to prescribe what an antisemitic environment looked like in classrooms was concerning to Kenneth Stern, a scholar on hate. More than 20 years ago, he was the lead author of the highly controversial definition of antisemitism that’s been adopted by some states this year. It all but labels anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism. Now, nearly 50 countries, including the U.S., have embraced the definition.

Though Stern wrote the definition, he opposes using it to restrict speech in schools, arguing that it could threaten academic freedom and fuel censorship by chilling discussion about controversial topics. Stern said despite all the revisions made during the process, the final version will likely make antisemitism worse.

The law creates an antisemitism prevention coordinator to advise education and legislative leaders and says the person in that role should use federal guidelines published under former President Joe Biden as “a basis” for decision-making. The controversial definition of antisemitism Stern wrote is labeled as the most prominent definition of antisemitism in those guidelines, though it mentions others.

“I understand why people care about (preventing antisemitism in schools),” he said. “They want the Legislature to do something. I think the legislators are sincere that they want to do something. This is the wrong thing.”

Educators like Goldberg worry the bill could allow bad-faith critics to also dispute a wide array of controversial topics taught in schools. Will it become the basis for critics of the transgender community to pressure teachers to say there are only two genders, he wondered.

Gabriel Kahn, a Jewish teacher in Oakland who said he’s being investigated by his school district after challenging the content of an antisemitic training last year, said he fears prosecution for voicing the need to distinguish between antisemitism and criticism of Israel.

“What I’m most afraid of is that in the Democratic state of California, we can pass a censorship bill that protects a foreign nation from criticism implicitly,” he said. “What does that say about the future of academic freedom in our country?”

CalMatters reporter Carolyn Jones contributed reporting.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The Trump administration is proposing new rules that would further tighten its grip on who's allowed into the U.S., asking visitors from several dozen countries that benefit from visa-free travel to hand over their social media history and other personal information.

The new conditions were unveiled in a notice from the Department of Homeland Security earlier this week and are open for public comment and review for 60 days before going into effect.

The proposed measure applies to citizens from the 42 countries that belong to the visa waiver program and currently don't require visas for tourist or business visits to the U.S. Those foreign citizens would now have to submit five years' worth of their social media activity to be considered for entry.

They'd also have to provide emails they have used for the past 10 years, as well as phone numbers and home addresses of immediate family members. Officials would also be able to scrutinize IP addresses and metadata from electronically submitted photos.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the mandatory social media requirement is designed to comply with President Donald Trump's January executive order "to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes." However, they have not defined what type of online activity may constitute a threat.

Under the current visa waiver program, tourists can bypass the visa application process, which can take months to years. Instead, they pay $40 and submit an online application using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA. It's accessible to citizens of U.S. allied countries, including Australia, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. But that system may also get an overhaul if the latest changes take effect. The notice proposes eliminating online applications, moving to a mobile-only platform.

This is the latest step in the Trump administration's escalation of restrictions and surveillance of international travelers, foreign students and immigrants. In June, the State Department announced it will begin reviewing the social media accounts of foreign students. Earlier this month, the department instructed its staff to reject visa applications — primarily H-1B — from people who worked on fact-checking, content moderation or other activities, citing it as "censorship" of Americans' speech.

These latest proposed changes are not that different from those already in place for visa applicants, Marissa Montes, a professor at Loyola Law School, and director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic, told NPR.

"It's always been something that the government can ask for and has asked for in the past," Montes said. "The question is, how will [ESTA applicants] be screened by CPB? Will it be something they have to submit ahead of time or will it be an officer at a point of entry? We still don't know how the administration expects to implement this."

In the past, she said, such screenings occurred at the point of entry and that "it's always been discretionary if the officer wants to ask for it or not."

What is most troubling, Montes added, is that there are no explicit guidelines defining what qualifies as harmful to the United States.

"The problem is that when it comes to immigration policy and directives like this is that it's very broad and discretionary, meaning that the agent that is receiving this order has a lot of discretion to then interpret what can be viewed as anti-American," she said. "But we have seen that be interpreted as anything that goes against the Trump administration or is going against a value of the Trump administration."

Montes said she advises her clients to be mindful of not just their own online posts, but also posts they've liked, commented on and re-posted, which can be grounds for a denial or even a permanent ban from the U.S. For example, if someone has posts regarding casual drug use, or pictures of firearms, they can be viewed as a potential threat to the government. She said agents are also on the look out for posts that can be construed as pro-socialist or communist.

She cautions people not to eliminate their social media presence entirely, saying it's "become a red flag" for officials.

"Our immigration laws bar certain types of conduct because of immigration bias … so you really have to be careful about what you put out there," she warned. "As I always tell my clients, if I can find the information, the government certainly can."

Copyright 2025 NPR

Chop suey was once a classic Chinese American dish enjoyed on December 25 — a day when most other restaurants were closed — by Jews and other non-Christians.

These days, we tend to think of chop suey as a mishmash of stir-fried ingredients that emerged from immigrant communities in the United States. But its roots run deep, says Miranda Brown, a professor of Chinese history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She wrote a 2021 article called "The Hidden, Magnificent History of Chop Suey" for the website Atlas Obscura.

"It's a dish that is chopped offal," she says. "Lung, liver, tripe, kidneys."

Yes, originally chop suey was primarily made of organ meats. Brown is quick to note that offal is flavorful, rich in nutrients, and was enjoyed widely until a few generations ago, thanks, in part to industrial meat packaging processes.

"It can be chewy, it can be buttery, it can be kind of rubbery," Brown says of offal's distinctive textures. "For some people, that's really kind of exciting. Bouncy!"

The origins of the dish itself bounces back hundreds of years, she says, to imperial China.

"We have references to chop suey in Ming Dynasty texts," she notes. "The Journey to the West, which is a famous novel [from the 16th century], has a reference to chop suey. You will find it on fancy banquet menus. A version of the dish was even eaten at the Qing court."

When Chinese immigrants to the U.S. in the mid-1800s wanted to impress local officials, Brown says, they held banquets similar to ones back home, with 300-course meals that would get written up in local newspapers, in articles marveling over delicacies such as Peking duck, chop suey and bird's nest soup.

"All the bling foods that were popular when you had to [build] a good relationship with a person who had a lot of say about your life," Brown says.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted immigration heavily, but Chinese restaurants still spread rapidly across the United States. By the early 1900s, chop suey had become a cultural phenomenon, a beloved ambassador dish to what had been an unfamiliar cuisine to many Americans.

Louis Armstrong recorded a song in 1926 called "Cornet Chop Suey." The 1958 musical Flower Drum Song dedicated an entire number to it. And in the movie A Christmas Story, set in the 1940s and based on the writings of Jean Shepherd, a white, Midwestern, working-class family celebrates Christmas at a Chinese restaurant called the Bo Ling Chop Suey Palace.

"It was exotic," Brown says. "It involves a little bit of adventure, and it is a name that people can pronounce."

But by the late 20th century, chop suey had fallen out of fashion. Brown says she never saw it on menus in her home city of San Francisco in the 1980s, when she was growing up. By then, Americans had deepened their appreciation of Chinese food, thanks in large part to popular cookbook author, PBS host and restaurateur Cecilia Chiang.

Before she died in 2020 at the age of 100, Chiang told NPR she thought it was hilarious how so many Americans had believed that the contemporary versions of chop suey were authentic. "They think, oh, chop suey is the only thing we have in China," she said in a 2017 NPR interview. "What a shame!"

"I think for her, it had just evolved to the point where it was no longer recognizable," says Miranda Brown, whose own mixed heritage is half white, half Chinese. "Foods evolve. I always think, if I met my great-great-grandparents, would they recognize me? Would they see elements of their faces in mine or my daughter's? And I would guess not. Something similar happened with Chinese food in America. When a dish leaves, a hundred years later it has evolved, a lot."

And perhaps it's about time, Brown says, for chop suey's next evolution: to make a comeback.
Copyright 2025 NPR

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to discourage state governments from regulating artificial intelligence and urge Congress to pass a law preempting such regulations.

The order is likely to hit hardest in California, which since 2016 has passed more laws to regulate artificial intelligence than any other state, according to a Stanford report from earlier this year. California is also home to the world’s leading AI companies, including Anthropic, Google, Nvidia and OpenAI.

Trump’s order would require the heads of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws. It also calls for the development of model AI legislation to preempt or supersede state law unless those laws address children’s safety, data center infrastructure, state government use of AI or other yet-to-be-determined areas.

For states that continue to regulate AI, the order instructs federal agencies to explore whether they can restrict grants to them, including by revoking funding known as Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment. California has a potential $1.8 billion in broadband funding at stake, much of which was committed to specific projects earlier this month and is set to deliver internet access to more than 300,000 people.

In a social media post earlier this week and remarks from the Oval Office today, Trump said the executive order was written to prevent businesses from needing to comply with laws from multiple states and that having to do so threatens America’s competitive advantage over other nations. Investors in tech startups, such as the Menlo Park venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, have urged the president to restrict state AI regulation and celebrated the president signing the order.

Laws affected by the order

Trump’s order specifically criticized a Colorado law that requires testing and disclosure of AI that makes consequential decisions about people’s lives and seeks to prevent discrimination, a standard California lawmakers may revisit next year.

Among recently-passed California laws that federal agencies may challenge are:

• A ban on AI makers blaming the technology itself for harming people when defending themselves in court.
• A prohibition on algorithms raising prices.
• A requirement that the makers of AI supply the public with tools to identify AI-generated photos, videos and audio so that they can better spot fakes. 
• A law going into effect next month that requires AI makers to disclose details about the data they use to train their models.

Members of Congress routinely call California an example of AI regulation run amok, but lawmakers from both major parties have supported regulating AI, with more than 70 laws passed by 27 states this year, according to a report by the Transparency Coalition. California again led the nation with the passage of roughly a dozen laws as Texas, Montana, Utah and Arkansas followed with the most AI bills signed into law this year.

The executive order comes on the heels of a second attempt in Congress to preempt state AI laws, which fell short last week. Republican members of Congress first attempted to ban AI regulation by state governments for 10 years this spring, an initiative derailed in part by concerns about the fate of a law that protects country music musicians in Tennesse and others that seek to block child sexual abuse material.

A look at public opinion

Polls show Californians and Americans support AI regulation. A Carnegie Endowment California poll released in October found that nearly 80% of Californians strongly or somewhat agree that, when it comes to AI, safety should be prioritized over innovation. A September Gallup poll also found that four out of five Americans want lawmakers to prioritize safety over innovation, even if that means the technology is developed more slowly.

In addition to endangering the lives of children, artificial intelligence can lead to false arrests, discriminate against job applicants and employees and deny people government benefits or health care that they’re entitled to. The technology is also power hungry, potentially driving up electricity rates and endangering clean energy goals. It also needs large amounts of fresh water for the cooling systems in data centers. Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that sued to stop a California data center project one year ago, called the executive order an early Christmas gift to big tech.

What opponents say

Opponents of the executive order say it leaves Californians vulnerable to harm.

“Make no mistake: this order doesn’t create new protections, it removes them. That’s not governing. That’s a dereliction of duty wrapped in yet another distraction from a fracturing MAGA movement and a president who doesn’t understand the real dangers of rapidly advancing tech,” state Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat representing Santa Ana, said in a statement last month, when a draft of the executive order leaked to the press.

In the California Legislature enthusiasm for regulating AI shows little sign of abating. More than 100 film industry workers from groups like the Animation Guild and SAG-AFTRA showed up at a committee hearing earlier this week about protecting the work of creatives. Many spoke in support of a bill requiring AI companies to disclose what copyrighted material they use to train their models.

Animation Guild president Danny Lin said at the hearing that AI threatens nearly 40,000 jobs in California’s film, television and animation industries.

“L.A. is bleeding out before my very eyes,” Lin told state lawmakers.

In response to the executive order Lin told CalMatters calling out a Colorado law that seeks to prevent discrimination and protect working class people doesn’t give her confidence that the legislation the president is calling for will address the concerns of creatives whose work is used to train generative AI models.

“It’s pretty apparent that if we had a federal government that was actually focused on regulating this technology then the states would not feel the need to step in and create state specific legislation,” she said.

More on AI

The State Department has reversed a Biden-era font change that aimed to make its paperwork more accessible to readers with disabilities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed diplomats around the world to switch from Calibri to Times New Roman 14-point font in all official documents, starting on Wednesday, the State Department said in a statement to NPR. The difference between the two fonts comes down to a few finishing strokes.

"Whether for internal memoranda, papers prepared for principals, or documents shared externally, consistent formatting strengthens credibility and supports a unified Department identity," the statement said.

Times New Roman had been the State Department's official font for nearly two decades, from 2004 until 2023.

According to the Associated Press, Rubio said in a cable sent to U.S. embassies and consulates that the 2023 change, implemented by then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken, was part of misguided diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Calibri is a sans serif font, meaning it doesn't have the decorative tops and tails at the ends of letters that serif fonts like Times New Roman do.

Times New Roman is a serif font, with decorative flourishes, while the sans-serif Calibri can be easier to read.

(

NPR

)

Those little flourishes can make the lettering harder to read, says Kristen Shinohara, who leads the Center for Accessibility and Inclusion Research at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

"This impact can be more severe for people with learning or reading disabilities like dyslexia or for people with low vision," she told NPR's Morning Edition.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires sans-serif fonts on physical signage and display screens because of their relative legibility. At the same time, serif fonts like Times New Roman remain the norm in print newspapers, books, legal documents and more.

"Times New Roman specifically, and serif fonts generally, are more formal and professional," the State Department statement said. It did not respond to NPR's questions about reduced accessibility.

Times New Roman was designed specifically for the British newspaper The Times in the 1920s and quickly became the favored typeface for many other publications. It was also the default font of Microsoft programs like Word beginning in the 1990s until it was replaced by Calibri — which was designed with screens in mind — in 2007.

Microsoft replaced Calibri with a sans-serif font called Aptos in 2023. The company wrote in a blog post at the time that Aptos' designer, Steve Matteson, wanted the font to have "the universal appeal of the late NPR newscaster Carl Kasell and the astute tone of The Late Show host Stephen Colbert."

Small lettering, bigger patterns

Rubio's memo describes the 2023 change to Calibri as "another wasteful DEIA program" and says it did not lead to a meaningful reduction in the department's accessibility-based document remediation cases, according to copies obtained by Reuters and The Associated Press.

The Trump administration has made no secret of its disdain for its predecessor's focus on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Trump has issued numerous executive orders dismantling DEI initiatives in federal agencies, the foreign service, federal contracts and more. His administration put pressure on universities and public schools, threatening to withhold federal funding from those that have DEI programs, though a judge struck down some of those efforts in August. And growing anti-DEI backlash has also resulted in scores of private companies scaling back their own such initiatives.

During his tenure at the State Department, Rubio has already abolished offices and initiatives meant to foster inclusion and diversity, both in D.C. and abroad.

The State Department statement says the return to Times New Roman better aligns with Trump's "One Voice for America's Foreign Relations" directive from February, by underscoring its "responsibility to present a unified, professional voice in all communications."

It also fits into the Trump administration's broader fixation on aesthetics, from his gilded Oval Office redesign to his proposal of a classically-styled D.C. arch to mark the nation's 250th birthday to his August executive order mandating that new federal buildings prioritize classical and traditional architectural styles.

And well before the Trump administration started specifying federal agencies' fonts, it was restricting the words they could use.

The Health and Human Services Department removed entire webpages devoted to topics like LGBTQ health and HIV, while the Department of Energy instructed employees to avoid using terms including "climate change" and "sustainable." Just this week, court filings emerged showing the administration's six-page list of words the federal Head Start programs cannot use, including "disability," "race" and "women."
Copyright 2025 NPR