The NYTimes un-ironically(?) posted a fairly thorough piece about the current mess over Times New Roman vs Calibri. But they neglected to mention their place in the font spectrum. Times New Roman was originally created for The Times of London (1932), but NYTimes uses their own version of Times (“Times Classic”, though it significantly post-dates New Roman by 68 years.)
If our government really cares about legibility, they should note that Times New Roman was designed to squeeze more words onto a line (to save on paper and ink), and not primarily for legibility.
Likewise, the assumption that Times is canonical is incorrect, since it was based on the Plantin font, which in turn was based on many prior designs, each with their own names and histories.
As a designer, I’m thoroughly bored with all the Times variants. If you want classy, there are better options. If you want legible on paper, or on screen, there are better options (and it’s a different choice for each). It is a platypus of a font, standing halfway between the 19th and 21st centuries, but ideal for neither.