I'd say changing something for vague aesthetic reasons is far more wasteful than doing so to make things more accessible. Compare the cost of installing a curb cut vs. filling it back in because you think a straight curb looks "stronger."
serif vs sans serif is not "a vague aesthetic reason", it's the most fundamental typeface choice you can make, moreso than monospace (which is an artifact of some 19th century technology) Rubio is an attorney, and there are many stylistic conventions in the legal and judicial space, why ruffle those feathers by flouting them? if you are given a style guide for your PhD thesis, do you follow it or do you futz endlessly with the fonts to show them what an independent thinker you are?
Whether or not serifs actually make text harder to read, at least there is some plausible justification for the original change. Maybe it was stupid at the time, but it's done.
The justification here is petty and wasteful on its face.
No one said it can't be changed back. No one called anyone weird or Hitler. They just said that "it was wasteful to change it from X to Y, so I'm changing it from Y back to X" isn't a logical argument.
Blinken did change it to Calibri at the recommendation of the diversity and inclusion office. Whether or not it was justified is another matter, but there is no question it was a DEI initiative.
And changing it back to Times New Roman isn't wasteful?