WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what officials are calling “the most significant expansion of emotional infrastructure since the New Deal,” the federal government announced Thursday the creation of the Bureau of Difficult Dialogues (BDD), a $14.7 billion agency tasked with handling every uncomfortable conversation American citizens have been putting off.

“For too long, Americans have suffered under the crushing burden of having to say things to other people’s faces,” said Bureau Director Patricia Hartwell-Jennings at a press conference, flanked by fourteen deputy directors and a motivational poster reading “We’ll Say It So You Don’t Have To.” “This administration believes that no citizen should have to endure the trauma of telling their roommate to stop leaving dishes in the sink. That’s what government is for.”

The program, officially titled the Federal Interpersonal Communication Assistance Act (FICAA), assigns every American household a Certified Dialogue Representative (CDR) who will be available 24/7 to handle conversations rated Level 3 Discomfort or above on the Bureau’s newly published Awkwardness Index.

How It Works

Under the new system, citizens simply file Form DD-1 (“Request for Conversational Intervention”) with their local BDD field office, describing the nature of the difficult conversation. A trained federal agent is then dispatched within 3-5 business days to deliver the message on the citizen’s behalf.

“We’ve streamlined the process as much as possible,” explained Deputy Director Tom Clarkson, gesturing toward a flowchart that covered an entire wall and required a rolling ladder to read in full. “You fill out the DD-1, attach your supporting documentation — we recommend at least four pages of context — and then submit it along with Form DD-1A, which is the form requesting permission to submit Form DD-1. From there, it’s really very simple.”

For relationship breakups specifically, the Bureau has developed a specialized sub-program called Operation Clean Break. Federal agents arrive at the soon-to-be-ex-partner’s residence in full business attire, present official government identification, and read from a pre-approved script that has been vetted by no fewer than three committees.

“Dear Resident, pursuant to Emotional Severance Code 7.4(b), the individual formerly known as ‘your significant other’ has elected to terminate the romantic agreement, effective immediately. You have 30 days to appeal this decision. Sincerely, the United States Government.”

“Honestly, it’s so much better this way,” said Marcus Chen, 34, of Portland, Oregon, who was among the first citizens to use the service during the pilot program. “I’d been meaning to break up with my girlfriend for eight months, but I just couldn’t find the words. Then Agent Rodriguez showed up with a manila envelope and a clipboard, and it was done in twelve minutes. She cried, but she cried at a federal employee, so it wasn’t really my problem.”

The Mother-In-Law Provision

Perhaps the most celebrated section of the new legislation is Title IV, Section 12, colloquially known as “The Mother-In-Law Provision,” which establishes a formal protocol for communicating culinary criticism to extended family members.

Under the provision, citizens who find themselves unable to tell a family member that their cooking is, in the Bureau’s official terminology, “not up to standard,” may request that an Official Memorandum of Culinary Feedback be issued.

The memo, printed on government letterhead and bearing the seal of the Department of Health and Human Services, reads in part:

“This correspondence serves as formal notification that the casserole, pie, meatloaf, or other dish (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Item’) prepared by the recipient on the date(s) specified in Attachment B did not meet the minimum palatability threshold as established by the Federal Taste Standards Board (FTSB). This is not a reflection of the recipient’s worth as a human being, though a mandatory cooking improvement plan may be enclosed.”

“My mother-in-law has been making this green bean casserole for twenty-three years, and it tastes like someone boiled a shoe in mushroom soup,” said Rebecca Thornton, 41, of Boise, Idaho. “I’ve smiled through every single Thanksgiving. But now? The government sent her a certified letter. She’s furious, but she’s furious at the Bureau, not at me. This is the greatest country on Earth.”

Workplace Confrontations Now Require Form DD-7

The Bureau’s reach extends well into the professional sphere. Under the new guidelines, all workplace confrontations — from telling a colleague they microwave fish in the break room to informing an employee they’re being terminated — now require the filing of Form DD-7 (“Workplace Interpersonal Friction Report”).

“We believe the American workplace should be completely free of discomfort,” said Hartwell-Jennings. “If you have a problem with a coworker, you shouldn’t have to deal with it like some kind of animal. You should fill out paperwork and let a stranger handle it.”

Form DD-7 is seventeen pages long and requires the filer to describe the conflict in detail, provide a minimum of three proposed resolutions, undergo a background check, and submit to a “Confrontation Readiness Assessment” to determine whether they might be capable of handling the conversation themselves. If the assessment determines they are capable, they are required to file Form DD-7A (“Waiver of Government Conversational Assistance”), which is twenty-two pages long and generally discourages most people from even trying.

Employers have largely embraced the program. “Before the Bureau, I had to personally tell Steve in accounting that he smelled like a wet dog,” said Karen Ostrowski, HR Director at Pinnacle Solutions, a mid-sized consulting firm in Atlanta. “Now I just fax over a DD-7 and a government agent shows up in a hazmat suit. It’s much more professional.”

Steve in accounting could not be reached for comment, as he was in a mandatory meeting with his assigned Dialogue Representative regarding his “aromatic non-compliance.”

Pilot Program Results

The Bureau released data from its six-month pilot program in three test cities — Tucson, Arizona; Akron, Ohio; and Burlington, Vermont — and the numbers are, in the Bureau’s words, “staggering and definitely real.”

According to the report:

• Conversation satisfaction increased by 300%, as measured by a survey in which participants were asked, “Are you satisfied that someone else had this conversation for you?” and the only available answers were “Yes” and “Very Yes.”
• Paperwork volume increased by 4,000%, which the Bureau described as “a sign of a healthy and functioning system.”
• Interpersonal conflicts resolved totaled 12,407, though the Bureau acknowledged that 11,200 of those were “new conflicts created by the process of resolving the original conflicts.”
• Average resolution time was 47 business days, down from the Bureau’s initial projection of “never.”
• Citizen emotional well-being improved by an unverified 600%, based on self-reported data from citizens who were told the survey was mandatory.

“The numbers speak for themselves,” said Bureau statistician Dr. Allen Marsh. “And if they don’t, we have a representative who can speak for them.”

One Dissenter Quickly Corrected

Not everyone has embraced the program. Gary Hutchins, 52, a small business owner in Lubbock, Texas, told reporters that he found the Bureau “an absurd overreach” and that he was “perfectly capable of having his own uncomfortable conversations.”

“I’ve been telling people exactly what I think for fifty-two years,” Hutchins said. “I don’t need a government babysitter to —”

At that point, Hutchins was interrupted by his assigned Dialogue Representative, Agent Lisa Morales, who informed him that his criticism of the Bureau had been flagged as a Level 5 Difficult Conversation and would need to be mediated.

“Mr. Hutchins has filed a complaint, and we take all complaints very seriously,” said Agent Morales, producing a clipboard. “He’ll need to fill out Form DD-9 (‘Criticism of the Bureau of Difficult Dialogues’), which will be reviewed by our Internal Complaints Division within 6-8 weeks. In the meantime, his objection has been noted, cataloged, and placed in a drawer.”

Hutchins reportedly attempted to object further but was informed that objecting to the objection process required Form DD-9A and a $35 processing fee.

“See, this is exactly what I’m talking about,” Hutchins said, before being handed a pamphlet titled “Why Your Feelings About This Are Valid But Ultimately Irrelevant.”

Expansion Plans

The Bureau has already announced plans to expand the program in fiscal year 2027, including:

• The Apology Division, which will issue formal government apologies on behalf of citizens who have done something wrong but would rather not discuss it.
• The Compliment Bureau, for citizens who want to say something nice but find it “too emotionally risky.”
• The Small Talk Initiative, a $3.2 billion program designed to handle weather-related conversations and elevator chitchat.
• The Silence Management Office, which will dispatch agents to sit quietly with citizens who are giving someone the silent treatment, to ensure the silence is being conducted within federal guidelines.

“We’re really just getting started,” said Director Hartwell-Jennings. “Our ultimate vision is a world where no American ever has to look another human being in the eye and say something that makes either of them feel a feeling. That’s the promise of this great nation.”

The Bureau is currently accepting applications for 23,000 new Dialogue Representatives. Requirements include a bachelor’s degree in communications or a related field, the ability to maintain a neutral facial expression for up to four hours, and “a deep, abiding love of clipboards.”

At press time, the Bureau had issued a formal statement on behalf of the American people, which read: “We’re fine. Everything’s fine. Please stop asking.”