HB7169, titled the “Understanding Basic English Requirements Act of 2026” or the “UBER Act,” would bar executive agencies from awarding federal transportation contracts to transportation network companies and other shared-use mobility companies unless every driver performing work under the contract meets a set of eligibility standards. Those standards include being at least 21 years old, having a valid driver’s license from one state or jurisdiction, passing a road test, being able to safely operate the vehicle, and being able to read and speak English well enough to communicate with the public, law enforcement, and officials, understand traffic signs, and complete reports and records.
The bill includes a narrow exception to the English-proficiency requirement for drivers who are deaf or hard of hearing and use American Sign Language. It also requires companies seeking covered federal contracts to certify compliance with the driver standards. If a company is found not to comply with its certification, it would be debarred from receiving federal contracts for five years. The bill defines both “transportation network company” and “shared-use mobility company” broadly enough to cover ridesharing, ridesourcing, taxis, limos, bikesharing, scooter sharing, vanpooling, and shuttle services.
The bill’s main legal effect would be to add federal contracting conditions for transportation and mobility providers, rather than directly regulating all ride-share activity nationwide. It would affect companies that do business with executive agencies in the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, and would create a compliance and enforcement mechanism tied to federal procurement and debarment rules. In practical terms, it could influence hiring, screening, and certification practices for contractors that provide passenger transportation services to the federal government.
Public sentiment in the available record is limited because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, and the bill was only referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed as a safety and communication measure, but it may also be viewed as restrictive because it conditions federal contracting on English proficiency and other driver qualifications. The only explicit accommodation in the bill is for deaf or hearing-impaired drivers who use American Sign Language.
The main point of contention is likely to be the English-language requirement itself, especially whether it is necessary for safety and public communication or whether it unfairly excludes qualified drivers, including immigrants and non-native English speakers. Another possible issue is the breadth of the covered entities and the use of federal debarment as a penalty, which could be seen as a strong enforcement tool. Supporters would likely emphasize passenger safety, communication with law enforcement and officials, and standardized driver qualifications, while critics may focus on discrimination, labor access, and the impact on the ride-share workforce.
The bill would amend federal procurement practices by prohibiting executive agencies from entering transportation-related contracts unless covered drivers meet specified age, licensing, testing, safety, and English-proficiency requirements. It would also require company certifications of compliance and authorize a five-year federal debarment for noncompliance, thereby affecting federal contractors, transportation network companies, and shared-use mobility providers that seek to do business with the federal government.
No votes or committee debate are available, so the recorded legislative sentiment is limited. From the bill text, the measure is presented as a safety and communication standard for federally contracted drivers, with a limited accommodation for deaf or hearing-impaired drivers using American Sign Language. The likely overall reaction is mixed: supporters would favor the safety and public-interaction rationale, while opponents would likely object to the English-proficiency mandate and its potential exclusionary effect.
The central controversy is the requirement that drivers be able to read and speak English sufficiently to communicate with the public, law enforcement, and officials, which critics may view as discriminatory or unnecessarily restrictive. Related concerns include whether the federal government should use contracting rules to impose workforce standards on ride-share and mobility companies, and whether a five-year debarment is a proportionate penalty. Supporters are likely to argue that the standards improve safety, accountability, and communication, while opponents may emphasize access to employment and the burden on immigrant and multilingual drivers.