UBER Act Demands English Proficiency, Age 21 Minimum for Drivers on Federal Contracts: Companies Face 5-Year Ban for Non-Compliance

The new “Understanding Basic English Requirements Act of 2025,” or UBER Act, doesn’t change how you hail a ride on a Friday night, but it radically alters the requirements for drivers who pick up federal employees or perform services under a government contract. Essentially, if a transportation network company (TNC) or shared-use mobility company wants to secure a contract with any executive federal agency—think shuttling employees for the Department of Energy or providing rides for visiting officials—every single driver on that contract must meet strict new criteria. This bill mandates that drivers must be at least 21 years old, hold a valid license from only one state, successfully pass a road test, and, critically, be able to “read and speak English well enough to converse with the public and officials, understand traffic signs, respond to inquiries, and complete required reports and records.”

The New Gatekeepers: Age, Tests, and Language

For a busy TNC driver, these rules are a new layer of complexity, especially the age and language requirements. The 21-and-over rule instantly sidelines drivers aged 18 to 20 who might be using rideshare income to pay for college or cover living expenses. While TNCs often have their own minimum age rules, this bill makes 21 the mandated floor for any federal contract work. The road test requirement also standardizes a practical driving assessment, which sounds like a safety win. However, the most significant shift is the English proficiency mandate. While the bill specifies that this is only for drivers performing work under a federal contract, the subjective nature of the language—“well enough to converse”—creates a significant gray area. Who decides what “well enough” means, and what test will be used? The bill is silent on objective metrics, leaving the door open for potentially arbitrary enforcement.

The Impact on Drivers and Diversity

This language requirement will hit immigrant drivers and non-native English speakers the hardest. Many TNC drivers rely on this flexible work, and while they may be excellent, safe drivers, they might not meet a vague standard of English proficiency set by a federal agency. The bill offers only one narrow exemption: drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language. This means a driver who speaks Spanish, Mandarin, or another language fluently, but whose English is functional but not conversational enough for an official’s liking, could be barred from federal contract work. This provision risks disproportionately restricting employment opportunities for a diverse pool of drivers who are otherwise fully competent.

Certification: A High-Stakes Gamble for Companies

The UBER Act puts enormous pressure on the TNCs and mobility companies themselves. To get a federal contract, they must certify to the executive agency that all their drivers on that contract meet every single requirement. The stakes are incredibly high: if the company is later found to be non-compliant—say, one driver’s English proficiency is deemed insufficient, or their license status is questioned—the company faces a five-year debarment from receiving any federal contracts. This penalty is severe. For a large TNC, a small, accidental error in certification could result in losing millions in government business for half a decade. This massive risk could force companies to over-police their driver pool or avoid federal contracts altogether, which could reduce the availability of these services for government agencies.

In short, the UBER Act aims to standardize the qualifications of drivers on federal contracts, but it does so by introducing subjective language barriers and harsh penalties. While the intent might be to ensure clear communication during official business, the practical outcome is a restrictive policy that could exclude thousands of otherwise qualified drivers, particularly those who are non-native English speakers, while placing a massive compliance burden on the companies that employ them.