The Understanding Basic English Requirements (UBER) Act conditions federal agreements with transportation network companies (TNCs) and shared-use mobility firms on driver-level eligibility standards. It directs that, for any executive agency contract covering the continental United States or Hawaii, every driver assigned under the contract must meet age, English-proficiency, licensing, vehicle-operation, and road-test requirements; companies must certify compliance or face a 5-year debarment.
This is a procurement-driven approach to driver standards rather than a direct licensing regime. For federal contracting officers, the bill creates a new gate: companies that want to perform shared-mobility services for the federal government must demonstrate that their drivers meet non‑medical and non‑technical qualifications — and bear the risk of significant federal sanctions for inaccurate certification.
The statute leaves key implementation questions (standards for proving English proficiency, testing protocols, and verification procedures) to practice, creating operational and legal uncertainties for agencies, companies, and affected drivers.
At a Glance
What It Does
Prohibits the head of any executive agency from awarding a contract or agreement for rideshare/shared-mobility services unless every driver who will work under that contract is at least 21, can read and speak English ‘sufficiently’ to perform certain tasks, can safely operate the vehicle, holds a single-state valid driver’s license, and has passed a road test. It exempts deaf or hard-of-hearing drivers who use American Sign Language from the English requirement.
Who It Affects
Transportation network companies, shared-use mobility providers (including taxi and scooter vendors when they seek federal contracts), their driver networks, and federal procurement and compliance offices. The bill touches law enforcement and other officials who interact with contracted drivers because it conditions contracts on drivers’ ability to converse in English.
Why It Matters
By anchoring language and vetting requirements to federal procurement, the statute effectively forces private mobility operators to adopt new screening, documentation, and training procedures to retain or win federal business. The certification-plus-debarment mechanism amplifies enforcement risk and could shift how companies staff vehicles assigned to government contracts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a procurement condition: an executive agency head cannot sign a rideshare or shared-mobility contract covering the continental United States or Hawaii unless every driver who will perform work under that contract meets a short list of qualifications. Those qualifications include an age floor (21), an ability to read and speak English to converse with the public and officials, understand traffic signage, respond to official inquiries, and fill out reports; demonstrable vehicle-operating ability through experience or training; possession of a currently valid driver’s license issued by a single State or jurisdiction; and successful completion of a road test.
The statute places the compliance obligation on the mobility company rather than the individual driver: a TNC or shared-use mobility company must certify to the executive agency that all drivers assigned to the federal contract meet the statutory requirements. If an investigating authority later finds the certification to be false, the company faces mandatory debarment from federal contracts for five years.
That creates a high-stakes certification regime where company-level compliance programs and recordkeeping will be central.The bill carves out an express exception to the English requirement for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language. Separately, the definitions section clarifies the scope of covered entities (TNCs and shared-use mobility companies) and includes a proviso that a TNC may not control or manage a driver’s personal vehicle except by written contract — a clause that preserves, at least in language, the independent-contractor model commonly asserted by these platforms.
The measure is narrowly framed as a condition on federal procurement; it does not itself create a federal driver‑licensing regime or specify testing instruments, scoring thresholds, or who administers language assessments, leaving those operational details to implementing practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Executive agencies may not award rideshare or shared-mobility contracts covering the continental U.S. or Hawaii unless every driver performing under the contract meets the bill’s eligibility list.
The driver eligibility list includes age 21+, English reading and speaking sufficient to converse with the public and officials and to make entries on reports, demonstrated vehicle-operating ability, a valid driver’s license issued by only one State or jurisdiction, and a passed road test.
The bill exempts drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language from the English-proficiency requirement.
A TNC or shared-use mobility company must certify that all drivers assigned to the federal agreement meet the statutory requirements, and a company found noncompliant is debarred from federal contracts for 5 years.
Definitions clarify covered entities and state that a TNC may not control or manage a driver’s personal vehicle except by written contract, preserving a putative separation between platform and driver.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This single-line section names the legislation the "Understanding Basic English Requirements Act of 2025" and gives it the nickname the "UBER Act." It has no operative effect but signals the bill’s focus on language and driver standards tied to procurement.
Driver eligibility criteria for federal contract work
Lists the substantive driver qualifications that must be met for drivers working on covered federal contracts: minimum age (21), English reading/speaking capacity for listed tasks, demonstrated safe operation of the vehicle, a currently valid driver’s license issued by only one State or jurisdiction, and a successful road test. Practically, agencies will use these criteria as pass/fail hurdles when accepting contractors’ certifications; however the text does not define metrics or testing protocols for measuring English proficiency or ‘‘experience, training, or both’’ for vehicle operation.
American Sign Language exception
Creates a narrow exemption to the English requirement for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and who use American Sign Language. The exemption is functionally limited: it recognizes ASL users while leaving open how interactions that require spoken English (e.g., with non‑ASL‑using officials or passengers) will be handled in practice.
Company certification requirement and penalty for false certification
Requires covered mobility companies to certify to the executive agency that all drivers assigned to the federal agreement meet the statutory prerequisites. The section sets a mandatory penalty for noncompliance: debarment from receiving Federal contracts for five years. This ties enforcement to procurement remedies rather than criminal or civil penalties against individual drivers, concentrating legal risk at the company level and incentivizing firms to develop verification and recordkeeping systems.
Scope and entity definitions, and TNC control clause
Defines key terms: ‘‘executive agency’’ by cross-reference to title 41, ‘‘shared‑use mobility company’’ broadly to include taxis, bikesharing, scooters, ridesharing and similar services, and ‘‘transportation network company’’ to describe app-based platforms that connect riders and drivers. The definitions include a statement that a TNC may not control, direct, or manage a driver’s personal vehicle except by written contract — a provision that preserves a doctrinal distinction relevant to labor and liability debates, even as the bill imposes procurement conditions on the companies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal procurement offices: Gain a clear statutory lever to insist on standardized minimum driver qualifications for covered mobility services, which may simplify risk assessment for safety and law-enforcement interactions.
- Passengers on federal contracts and agencies: Potentially benefit from drivers who can communicate in English with officials and complete required reports, which could improve incident response and record accuracy.
- Law enforcement and emergency responders: Stand to encounter drivers who are statutorily expected to converse in English and understand traffic signage, which could reduce miscommunication during stops or incidents.
- Drivers already meeting the requirements: Those who already satisfy the age, licensing, road-test, and English criteria may become comparatively more marketable for federally contracted routes or services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Transportation network companies and shared-mobility providers: Must build or expand applicant screening, language-assessment, recordkeeping, and certification processes and face a five‑year debarment risk if a certification is found untrue.
- Non-English-proficient drivers (including many recent immigrants): Face exclusion from the subset of work tied to federal contracts, which could reduce earning opportunities or compel retraining.
- Small and local mobility operators: May lack infrastructure to verify English proficiency or maintain audit-ready documentation, placing them at a competitive disadvantage when pursuing federal business.
- Federal contracting officers and compliance units: Will need to develop procedures to accept, verify, and audit company certifications and to manage debarment proceedings, likely increasing administrative workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate public interests: improving safety and clear communication on federally contracted mobility services by imposing a language-and‑vetting floor, versus avoiding exclusionary effects, regulatory overreach, and legal exposure that arise when language competence becomes a gate to economic opportunity without clear, fair, and administrable testing and accommodation rules.
The statute sets out a rule — English proficiency required — without specifying how agencies or companies should measure that proficiency. The phrase "can read and speak English sufficiently" ties the requirement to listed tasks (conversation with public and officials, understanding signs, responding to official inquiries, making entries on reports), but the bill omits any testing instruments, scoring thresholds, approved administrators, or documentary proof.
That omission creates uncertain compliance pathways: companies must decide whether to rely on self-attestation, internal tests, third‑party assessments, driver training logs, or operational metrics, with debarment risk as a sanction for errors.
Second, the bill's use of procurement remedies rather than licensing or criminal penalties concentrates enforcement on companies but risks disparate-impact and civil-rights challenges. Requiring English proficiency without an articulated reasonable-accommodation process raises clear ADA and Title VII questions: the statute exempts ASL users who are deaf or hard of hearing, but does not set out how accommodations should be evaluated for other disabilities or limited-English-proficiency drivers.
Practical enforcement issues include cross‑jurisdictional licensing nuances from the single-state-license requirement and the consequences of the TNC control clause when companies do in practice exercise scheduling, routing, or performance standards.
Finally, the five-year mandatory debarment is a blunt tool. It gives agencies strong leverage but also increases the stakes of any audit or investigation into certification accuracy, potentially prompting over-compliance (companies refusing any driver whose documentation is not airtight) or parallel staffing strategies where companies ring-fence drivers for federal accounts.
The combination of unclear measurement standards, high compliance costs, and a severe penalty structure creates real implementation risk and legal exposure that the text does not resolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.