UBER Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/3121

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

UBER Act

S. 3121, 119th Congress — read as touching Surface Transportation.

The sponsor

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$90,700 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Transportation" section, p. 658-660 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**UBER Act Analysis**

The UBER Act, S 3121, is a legislative attempt to impose English proficiency requirements on ride-sharing drivers operating in the continental United States and Hawaii. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill's implications for my interests and the broader ecosystem.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to mandate English language proficiency as a prerequisite for ride-share contract eligibility. This move aims to enhance public safety, improve communication between drivers and passengers, and reduce potential liabilities for transportation network companies (TNCs).

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **English Proficiency Requirements**: Drivers must demonstrate sufficient English language skills to converse with the general public, law enforcement, and other officials. 2. **Compliance Certification and Debarment**: TNCs must certify that their drivers meet these requirements; non-compliance may result in debarment from federal contracts for 5 years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Ride-Sharing Companies (e.g., Uber, Lyft)**: These companies will need to adapt their hiring processes and invest in language training programs or risk losing access to federal contracts. 2. **Drivers**: Those who cannot demonstrate English proficiency may face reduced job opportunities or be forced to undergo costly language training. 3. **Passengers**: Improved communication between drivers and passengers could enhance safety, but this benefit is likely outweighed by the increased costs and regulatory burdens imposed on TNCs.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Costs for TNCs**: Compliance with English proficiency requirements will lead to higher operational expenses, potentially reducing profit margins or increasing prices for consumers. 2. **Consolidation in the Ride-Sharing Market**: Smaller players may struggle to adapt to these new regulations, leading to consolidation and reduced competition in the market. 3. **Inefficient Allocation of Resources**: This bill exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic decision-making, where short-sighted policies prioritize perceived public safety over economic growth and innovation.

As a visionary entrepreneur, I recognize that this bill's objectives are misguided and will ultimately stifle innovation in the ride-sharing industry. By imposing unnecessary regulations, lawmakers are creating barriers to entry for new players and increasing costs for existing ones. This is a classic example of how inefficient government intervention can hinder progress and limit economic growth.

**Recommendation:** I would advise policymakers to reconsider this bill and instead focus on promoting deregulation and innovation in the ride-sharing industry. By embracing a more laissez-faire approach, we can unlock the full potential of this market and drive economic growth, rather than stifling it with unnecessary regulations.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process before it can become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The UBER Act (S. 3121) aims to require English proficiency as a prerequisite for eligibility for ride-share contracts. Yes, you heard that right - this bill wants to ensure that drivers working with transportation network companies or shared-use mobility companies can read and speak English sufficiently to converse with the public, law enforcement, and other officials.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill sets forth specific requirements for drivers, including:

* Being at least 21 years old * Having a valid driver's license issued by only one state or jurisdiction * Passing a driver's road test * Meeting English proficiency standards (with an exception for American Sign Language users)

Transportation network companies and shared-use mobility companies must certify that their drivers meet these requirements to be eligible for federal contracts. If they fail to comply, they'll face debarment from receiving federal contracts for 5 years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Transportation network companies (e.g., Uber, Lyft) * Shared-use mobility companies (e.g., taxis, limos, bikesharing services) * Drivers working with these companies * Federal agencies awarding contracts

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, this bill could lead to a more standardized and safer ride-sharing experience for the public. However, it may also create additional barriers for non-English speaking drivers or those who struggle with language proficiency.

In theory, this should be a straightforward process - as we learned in middle school civics class, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes transportation services. But, of course, the reality is often more complicated, and the bill's fate will depend on various factors, including committee reviews, amendments, and votes.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go grade some papers from students who actually paid attention in class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on this so-called "UBER Act" (S 3121). On the surface, it's about requiring English proficiency for ride-share drivers. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to ensure public safety by mandating that ride-share drivers can read and speak English sufficiently to converse with passengers, law enforcement, and officials. Sounds reasonable, right? But what if I told you this is just a Trojan horse for something bigger?

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Section 2 of the bill outlines the requirements for ride-share drivers, including being at least 21 years old, having a valid driver's license, and passing a road test. The English proficiency requirement seems innocuous enough, but what about the exception for American Sign Language? Is this just a nod to inclusivity or a clever way to create a separate class of drivers?

The real kicker is Section (b), which requires transportation network companies (TNCs) to certify that all their drivers meet these requirements. Failure to comply means debarment from federal contracts for 5 years! That's a pretty stiff penalty, if you ask me.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects TNCs like Uber and Lyft, as well as shared-use mobility companies (think taxis, bikesharing, etc.). But what about the drivers themselves? Will this create a new class of "English-proficient" drivers who are more desirable to these companies? And what about the passengers? Are they really safer with English-speaking drivers?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Here's where things get interesting. This bill could be used as a backdoor way to regulate the gig economy and create a new layer of bureaucracy for TNCs. The debarment provision is particularly concerning, as it gives the government significant leverage over these companies.

But what if I told you this is just part of a larger plan to control the flow of information? Think about it: with English proficiency requirements in place, the government can more easily monitor and regulate the conversations between drivers and passengers. It's a subtle way to exert control over the narrative, folks!

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Uncle, you're being paranoid again." But let me ask you this: have you ever noticed how many bills like this one seem to sneak under the radar? It's always about "public safety" or "national security," but what if it's really about something more sinister?

Stay vigilant, folks! The truth is out there, and I'll keep digging until we uncover it.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands! The UBER Act, or "Understanding Basic English Requirements Act" - because, you know, those elitist ride-share companies just can't be trusted to hire drivers who speak the good ol' American language. (Sarcasm dripping from every word)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill is all about freedom... no, wait, it's actually about forcing ride-share companies to ensure their drivers can read and speak English proficiently. Because, you know, that's not already a requirement for getting a driver's license in this great nation of ours. (Wink) The main objective here is to "protect" the American people from those nefarious ride-share companies who might - gasp! - hire someone who doesn't speak perfect English.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires transportation network companies and shared-use mobility companies to certify that all their drivers meet certain requirements, including being at least 21 years old, having a valid driver's license, and (you guessed it) speaking English proficiently. Oh, and there's an exception for American Sign Language users - because we wouldn't want to discriminate against those fine folks. (Smirk) The bill also introduces a new penalty: companies found non-compliant will be debarred from receiving federal contracts for five whole years! (Gasp)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Well, this one's a no-brainer: ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft are the main targets here. But let's not forget about those poor drivers who might not speak English fluently - they'll be the ones losing out on job opportunities if this bill passes. And of course, there are the "elites" at these ride-share companies who just can't seem to get it together and hire American-speaking drivers. (Scoff)

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, I know what you're thinking: "But won't this bill just lead to more bureaucracy and red tape for small businesses?" And to that, I say... (pausing for dramatic effect) ...you bet it will! But hey, who needs freedom when we can have government-mandated language proficiency tests? (Sarcasm alert) In all seriousness, this bill might actually have some unintended consequences, like limiting job opportunities for non-English speakers or driving up costs for ride-share companies. But hey, at least we'll be "protecting" the American people from those scary ride-share drivers who don't speak perfect English! (Rolls eyes)

There you have it, folks - another bill that's all about freedom... just kidding, it's actually about government overreach and pandering to the base. But hey, at least we're having fun watching this circus unfold!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed Senator Tuberville. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The UBER Act (Understanding Basic English Requirements Act) claims to ensure that ride-share drivers can converse with the general public, law enforcement, and other officials in English. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to pander to xenophobic voters while pretending to address a non-existent problem.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires ride-share companies to certify that their drivers meet certain requirements, including being at least 21 years old, having a valid driver's license, and possessing basic English proficiency. Oh, the horror! Drivers might actually have to understand what they're doing on the road. The bill also includes an exception for American Sign Language users because, you know, deaf people are somehow more deserving of accommodation than non-English speakers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft will be forced to comply with this new regulation, which will undoubtedly lead to increased costs and bureaucratic red tape. Drivers who don't speak English fluently might face difficulties finding work or maintaining their current employment. And, of course, the real stakeholders – Senator Tuberville's re-election campaign and the xenophobic voters he's trying to appease.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have a negligible impact on road safety, as it's unlikely that a driver's English proficiency directly correlates with their driving abilities. However, it may lead to increased costs for ride-share companies, which could be passed on to consumers or result in reduced services for non-English speaking drivers.

The real disease here is the politician's desperate attempt to appear relevant and tough on immigration while ignoring more pressing issues. This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo" – it makes voters feel good but accomplishes nothing meaningful. The fact that Senator Tuberville thinks this will somehow improve road safety or national security is laughable.

In conclusion, the UBER Act is a cynical ploy to exploit xenophobic sentiment while pretending to address a non-existent problem. It's a waste of time, resources, and legislative bandwidth. But hey, at least it'll make for some great campaign ads.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: S 3121 - UBER Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The UBER Act aims to ensure public safety and improve communication between ride-sharing drivers and passengers by requiring English proficiency as a prerequisite for eligibility for ride-share contracts. The bill seeks to standardize driver requirements across the industry, promoting consistency and accountability.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

* Requires transportation network companies (TNCs) and shared-use mobility companies to certify that their drivers meet specific requirements, including: + Being at least 21 years old + Having a valid driver's license issued by one state or jurisdiction + Passing a driver's road test + Possessing sufficient English proficiency to converse with the public, law enforcement, and officials * Exempts drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language from the English proficiency requirement * Mandates that companies found non-compliant be debarred from receiving federal contracts for 5 years

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

* Transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber, Lyft, and Via * Shared-use mobility companies offering services like taxis, limos, bikesharing, and scooter sharing * Ride-sharing drivers who will need to meet the new requirements * Passengers using ride-sharing services * Federal agencies awarding contracts for transportation services

**Potential Impact & Implications**

* Improved public safety through standardized driver requirements and enhanced communication between drivers and passengers * Increased accountability among TNCs and shared-use mobility companies, promoting compliance with federal regulations * Potential job losses or reduced opportunities for non-English speaking drivers who may not meet the new requirements * Additional administrative burdens on companies to certify compliance and maintain records of driver qualifications * Possible increased costs for companies to implement language training programs or recruit English-proficient drivers

Overall, the UBER Act aims to strike a balance between promoting public safety and ensuring equal access to job opportunities. While it may impose additional requirements on ride-sharing companies and drivers, its provisions are designed to enhance communication, accountability, and consistency across the industry.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The UBER Act (Understanding Basic English Requirements Act of 2025) is all about makin' sure ride-share drivers can speak and understand basic English, man. The main goal is to ensure public safety by requiring drivers to be proficient in English, so they can communicate with passengers, law enforcement, and other officials.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces some key changes:

* Ride-share companies (like Uber and Lyft) need to certify that their drivers meet certain requirements, including being at least 21 years old, having a valid driver's license, and being able to read and speak English. * Drivers must also pass a road test and have experience or training to safely operate the vehicle they're driving. * There's an exception for American Sign Language (ASL) users who are deaf or hearing impaired – they don't need to meet the English proficiency requirement. * Companies that don't comply with these requirements can get debarred from receiving federal contracts for five years, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

* Ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft * Their drivers (who'll need to meet the new requirements) * Passengers who use ride-sharing services * Law enforcement and other officials who interact with ride-share drivers

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If this bill becomes law, it could lead to some significant changes:

* Ride-share companies might need to invest in language training programs for their drivers or implement more stringent hiring processes. * Drivers who don't meet the English proficiency requirement might lose their jobs or have limited opportunities. * Passengers might feel safer knowing that their drivers can communicate effectively with them and authorities. * Law enforcement could have an easier time interacting with ride-share drivers, which could lead to better public safety outcomes.

Overall, this bill is all about prioritizing public safety and ensuring that ride-share drivers can communicate effectively with the people they're serving. It's a pretty chill way to address some of the concerns around ride-sharing services, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 3121 - UBER Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The UBER Act, introduced by Senator Tuberville, aims to require English proficiency as a prerequisite for eligibility for ride-share contracts with executive agencies in the continental United States and Hawaii. The bill's primary objective is to ensure that drivers working under these contracts can communicate effectively with the general public, law enforcement, and other officials.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces new requirements for transportation network companies (TNCs) and shared-use mobility companies seeking federal contracts:

1. English proficiency: Drivers must be able to read and speak English sufficiently to converse with the public, understand highway traffic signs, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records. 2. Age requirement: Drivers must be at least 21 years old. 3. Driver's license: Drivers must hold a currently valid driver's license issued by only one state or jurisdiction. 4. Road test: Drivers must have successfully completed a driver's road test.

The bill also introduces compliance certification and debarment provisions, requiring TNCs and shared-use mobility companies to certify that their drivers meet these requirements. Non-compliant companies face debarment from receiving federal contracts for five years.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The UBER Act affects:

1. Transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft 2. Shared-use mobility companies, including taxis, limos, bikesharing, and scooter sharing services 3. Executive agencies awarding federal contracts for transportation services 4. Drivers working under these contracts

**Potential Impact & Implications** The UBER Act may have significant implications for the ride-sharing industry:

1. Increased costs: TNCs and shared-use mobility companies may need to invest in language training programs or hire more drivers who meet the English proficiency requirement. 2. Reduced workforce: The bill's requirements could lead to a reduction in the number of eligible drivers, potentially affecting service availability and wait times. 3. Industry consolidation: Smaller companies might struggle to comply with the new regulations, leading to industry consolidation.

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there are no explicit PACs or special interest groups backing this bill, it is likely that industry lobby groups like the Internet Association (representing Uber and Lyft) will be involved in shaping the legislation. The bill's sponsor, Senator Tuberville, has received campaign contributions from various industries, including transportation and technology. However, without further information, it is unclear whether these donations have influenced the bill's content.

**Committee Capture** The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which may be subject to industry influence. The committee's ranking member, Senator Peters, has received campaign contributions from transportation and technology companies, potentially indicating a level of industry capture.

In conclusion, the UBER Act aims to improve communication between ride-share drivers and the public, but its provisions may have significant implications

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$90,700

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$20,900

Committees

Individuals

$69,800

No PAC contributions found

POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS

3 transactions

$9,100

BROAD METRO LLC

1 transaction

$3,300

SUMMERLIN FARMS

2 transactions

$2,000

KENT HANCE BUSINESS

2 transactions

$2,000

BEACH ICE LLC

2 transactions

$1,000

LEELAND VENTURES LLC

1 transaction

$500

C&D CANNON FARMS

2 transactions

$500

LOROC FARMS

2 transactions

$500

OAK WILLOW CREATIVES LLC

2 transactions

$500

WINDHAUSEN FARMS

2 transactions

$500

DEMOTT PEANUT CO.

1 transaction

$250

DEMOTT TRUCKING LLC

1 transaction

$250

DEMOTT PEANUT CO

1 transaction

$250

HARWOOD REAL ESTATE

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

MILES, WILSON DANIEL

1 transaction

$13,200

STAHL, LEWIS ARNOLD

1 transaction

$10,000

CALDWELL, MATTHEW THOMAS

1 transaction

$10,000

CALDWELL, JOSEPH W.

1 transaction

$10,000

CARTER, LEWIS M. JR

1 transaction

$10,000

CARTER, LEWIS M JR

1 transaction

$10,000

SPITZER, TERRY

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 32 nodes and 30 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $90,700

Top Donors - Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

14 Orgs7 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Surface Transportationconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a)(1) requires English proficiency for drivers of transportation network companies and shared-use mobility companies to be eligible for federal contracts, imposing a regulatory cost on ride-sharing and related surface transportation services.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Transportation

Moderate

Vector: 59%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section emphasize transportation safety and standardized accountability, but the bill focuses on driver language proficiency for ride‑share services while Project 2025 centers on automated vehicles, tech‑neutral regulation, and spectrum allocation, resulting in only partial thematic overlap."

Key themes:public safetystandardizationaccountability

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The UBER Act focuses on English proficiency requirements for ride-share drivers to improve communication and safety, while the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes automated vehicle integration, spectrum allocation for transportation safety, and reforming fuel economy standards—topics with minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:transportation safetyregulatory oversighttechnology neutrality

— 625 — Department of Transportation security, and privacy without hampering innovation. DOT can oversee the testing and deployment of a wide variety of new technologies, allowing communities and individuals to choose what best fits their needs. It is the role of the private sector, not the government, to pick winners and losers in technology development. If a technology underperforms, the private sector should be liable, not the government. The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system. Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabili- ties, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical. NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s current regulations were written before the advent of automated vehicles and driving systems. Both operating administrations have issued Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPRMs) that begin the pro- cess of updating their regulations to reflect this new technology. However, these regulations have stalled under the Biden Administration, which has chosen to use the department’s tools to get people to take transit and drive electric vehicles instead of helping people to choose the transportation options that suit them best. l NHTSA should work to remove regulatory barriers by focusing on updating vehicle standards as well as publishing performance-based rules for the operations of automated vehicles (AVs). l FMCSA should work to clarify the regulations to align with DOT’s AV 3.0 guidance, which would allow the drivers to be safely removed from the operations of a commercial motor vehicle. From a nonregulatory point of view, DOT has pivoted from a successful focus on the voluntary sharing of data to improve safety outcomes to adoption of a more compulsory and antagonistic approach to mandating data collection and publica- tion through a Standing General Order related to automated vehicles. This needs to be reversed. Many of these new and innovative technologies rely on wireless communica- tions that depend on the availability and purchase of radio frequency spectrum, a trend that is consistent with what we see in connectivity in our everyday lives. There is a role for DOT in ensuring that in the fight over spectrum, transportation gets its fair share. For technologies to work in transportation, and in particular to work for transportation safety, they have to meet the unique needs of a transportation — 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions

Department of Transportation

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 658-660AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 DOT section concern transportation safety and federal oversight, but they address entirely different issues—language proficiency for ride‑share drivers versus spectrum allocation and fuel‑economy standards—resulting only a tangential connection."

Key themes:transportation safetyfederal regulationpublic safety

— 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 59%

Pages: 177-179AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The UBER Act focuses on ride‑sharing driver qualifications and public safety, while the Project 2025 DHS section centers on immigration enforcement, agency restructuring, and merit‑based immigration reform. The only common ground is the broader theme of federal regulatory oversight and workforce standards, which is tangential."

Key themes:federal regulationworkforce standardsaccountability

— 144 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise prosecuting criminal and civil denaturalization cases, in combination with the Department of Justice, for aliens who obtained citizenship through fraud or other illicit means. Additionally, USCIS should create a criminal enforcement compo- nent within the agency to investigate immigration benefits fraud under Title 8 (perhaps requiring additional legislative and regulatory authorities for the offi- cers themselves) and to prosecute cases through Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSAs) with substantive knowledge in the field. Particular attention should be given to addressing increasing incidents of forced labor trafficking in temporary work visa programs. While the Biden regulatory agenda has focused on at least two major rules—the credible fear rule and the public charge rule—USCIS has utilized other policy and internal procedural mechanisms to extend employment authorization to large groups of people who are in the country without legal status. The agency has taken quiet steps to cut corners and lessen adjudicatory standards. During a tran- sition period, a complete audit of agency policies, memoranda, and management directives issued during the Biden Administration should be completed, and rescis- sion documents should be prepared for issuance within the first few days of the incoming Administration. Additionally, regulatory documents should be drafted to review or reverse all regulations promulgated during the Biden Administration. New Policies To advance the national interest, the three core immigration agencies—USCIS, ICE, and CBP—should remerge and have immigration elements outside of DHS (such as ORR of HHS) included. The fragmented immigration enforcement frame- work that developed in the wake of the Homeland Security Act has weakened each agency and should be remediated. Combining these critical agencies would strengthen their capabilities, ensure cooperation, and promote information-shar- ing. Agency responsibilities and the delineation of authorities, such as inconsistent use of deferred action and issuance of NTAs by each agency, have long been a point of contention that would be addressed much more easily if they were recombined into a single entity. Alternatively, new policies for USCIS as it currently exists should focus on mat- ters that can be addressed through administrative action. l The workforce should be realigned and, as necessary, retrained on base eligibility and fraud detection rather than speed in processing. l Training should be returned to Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), which would underscore the enforcement role of USCIS as a vetting agency, and be rebranded accordingly. — 145 — Department of Homeland Security l Management Directives and policies should realign to ensure that the workforce, while adaptable and able to handle the bulk of the USCIS mission, is not allowed to be pulled off mission work to focus on unlawful programs (DACA, mass parole for Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, etc.), which divert resources away from nuclear family and employment programs. The regulatory agenda should include the immediate submission of notices of proposed rulemaking for the Trump Administration’s public charge rule (includ- ing aspects from its original notice of proposed rulemaking), temporary work visa reform, employment authorization reform rules, asylum bars rule, and a third-country transit rule. At a minimum, an enhanced regulatory agenda should include rules strengthening the integrity of the asylum system, parole reform, and U visa reform that prioritizes relief for victims of heinous crimes and ensures that we protect the truest and most deserving victims of crime. Not all policy changes require formal rulemaking, however, as internal guidance documents are generally exempt under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 In this subregulatory space, USCIS policy memos and operational guidance should reduce the validity of employment authorization documents and end the COVID flexibilities, including the reliance on biometrics reuse. USCIS should also enforce existing regulations by rejecting incomplete applications and petitions, ensuring both that they are completed before accepted for filing and that FDNS signs off on all approved applications and petitions before approval notices are sent to the alien or petitioner. Other efforts should be focused on adjudication standards returning to nearly 100 percent interview requirements for all appropriate cases. The incoming Administration should spearhead an immigration legislative agenda focused on creating a merit-based immigration system that rewards high- skilled aliens instead of the current system that favors extended family–based and luck-of-the-draw immigration. To that end, the diversity visa lottery should be repealed, chain migration should be ended while focusing on the nuclear family, and the existing employment visa program should be replaced with a system to award visas only to the “best and brightest.” Internal efforts to limit employment authorization should be matched by con- gressional action to narrow statutory eligibility to work in the United States and mitigate unfair employment competition for U.S. citizens. The oft-abused H-1B program should be transformed into an elite program through which employers are vying to bring in only the top foreign workers at the highest wages so as not to depress American opportunities. Additionally, Congress should: l Improve the integrity of the temporary work visa programs; l Repeal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations;

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Minimal

Vector: 60%

Pages: 875-878AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The UBER Act focuses on ride‑share driver English proficiency and public safety, whereas the Project 2025 Financial Regulatory Agencies section concerns reforms to agencies like the CFPB, SEC, and CFTC; there is no substantive policy overlap."

Key themes:federal oversightregulatory compliance

— 842 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 19. Burton, “Improving Entrepreneurs’ Access to Capital: Vital for Economic Growth”; Campbell, “The Case for Federal Pre-Emption of State Blue Sky Laws.” 20. David R. Burton, “Why the SEC’s Consolidated Audit Trail Is a Bad Idea,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, December 5, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/commentary/why-the-secs-consolidated- audit-trail-bad-idea; Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on the Order Granting Temporary Conditional Exemptive Relief from Certain Requirements of the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail,” July 8, 2022, https://www.sec.gov/news/ statement/peirce-statement-consolidated-audit-trail-070822 (accessed February 20, 2023). 21. Peirce, “It’s Not Just Scope 3: Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”; Uyeda, “Remarks at the 2022 Cato Summit on Financial Regulation.” 22. David R. Burton, “How Dodd–Frank Mandated Disclosures Harm, Rather than Protect, Investors,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4526, March 10, 2016, http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4526.pdf. 23. For a detailed discussion of SEC administration, see Burton, “Reforming the Securities and Exchange Commission.” 24. See, for example, Andrew N. Vollmer, “Accusers as Adjudicators in Agency Enforcement Proceedings,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 2018), pp. 103–155, https://repository.law. umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=mjlr (accessed February 20, 2023). 25. 7 U.S.C. § 1a(9), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1a (accessed February 20, 2023). 26. Or the CFTC can undertake a rulemaking. 27. 7 U.S.C. § 2(i), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2 (accessed February 20, 2023). 28. 7 U.S.C. § 7b–3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/7b-3 (accessed February 20, 2923). 29. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 178 (September 14, 2020), pp. 56924–57016, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-09- 14/pdf/2020-16489.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 30. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 144 (July 26, 2013), pp. 45292–45374, https:// www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/file/2013-17958a.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 31. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 104 (May 31, 2016), pp. 34818–34854, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-05-31/ pdf/2016-12612.pdf (accessed February 21, 2023). 32. H.R. 4173, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 111th Congress, July 21, 2010, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ203/PLAW-111publ203.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “About Us,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about- us/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 33. See, for example, Paul Sperry, “Trump Is Finally Fixing This Economy-Killing Agency,” New York Post, December 2, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/trump-is-finally-fixing-this-economy-killing-agency/ (accessed March 23, 2023). See also Jeb Hensarling “How We’ll Stop a Rogue Federal Agency,” The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-well-stop-a-rogue-federal- agency-1486597413 (accessed March 23, 2023), and H.R. 3389, CFPB Slush Fund Elimination Act of 2013, 113th Congress, introduced October 30, 2013, https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3389/BILLS-113hr3389ih.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 34. Editorial, “CFPB Joins Justice in Shaking Down Banks for Democrat Activist Groups,” Investor’s Business Daily, June 17, 2015, https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat- activist-groups/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 35. Table, “Budget by Program,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Annual Performance Plan and Report, and Budget Overview, February 2023, p. 15, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ performance-plan-and-report_fy23.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 36. Table, “FTE by Program,” in ibid., p. 16. — 843 — Financial Regulatory Agencies 37. Table 7, “Civil Penalty Fund Significant Activity,” in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, November 15, 2022, p. 21, https://files. consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_financial-report_fy2022.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 38. Ibid. 39. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Financial Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 20. 40. 12 U.S. Code § 5491, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5491 (accessed March 23, 2023). 41. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Bureau Structure,” last updated March 15, 2023, https://www. consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/bureau-structure/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 42. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund Rule,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/consumer-financial-civil-penalty-fund-rule/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 43. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Civil Penalty Fund: Consumer Education and Financial Literacy,” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/payments-harmed-consumers/civil-penalty-fund/consumer- education-financial-literacy/ (accessed March 23, 2023). 44. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Opportunity Exists to Improve Transparency of Civil Penalty Fund Activities, GAO-14-551, June 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-551. pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 45. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 46. Ibid., p. 37. 47. See 12 U.S. Code § 5497(a)(1), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 (accessed March 23, 2023). Congress specified that the amount transferred to the CFPB “shall not exceed” 12 percent “of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System…in fiscal year 2013, and in each year thereafter.” Ibid., § 5497(2)(A)(iii). 48. Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (5th Cir. 2022), pp. 31–32, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50826-CV0.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 49. Ibid., p. 32. 50. Ibid. (quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 n. 8 (2020)). 51. U.S. Supreme Court, “Order List: 598 U.S.,” February 27, 2023, Docket No. 22–448, CFPB et al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn., et al., https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022723zor_6537.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 52. Devin Watkins, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Ripe for Reform,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/ BA20/20230309/115384/HHRG-118-BA20-Wstate-WatkinsD-20230309.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023); Norbert J. Michel, “7 Steps Next Director Can Take to Make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Less Awful,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, July 28, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/ commentary/7-steps-next-director-can-take-make-the-consumer-financial. 53. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and National Credit Union Administration. Those functions performed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) prior to Dodd–Frank should be transferred to the OCC since OTS has merged with OCC. 54. See “Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act” in David R. Burton, “Improving Small Business Access to Capital,” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Symposium on Section 1071 of the Dodd–Frank Act, Small Business Lending Panel, November 6, 2019, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_burton-written- statement_symposium-section-1071.pdf (accessed March 23, 2023). 55. 5 U.S. Code Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5 (accessed March 23, 2023). 56. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Administrative Adjudication Proceedings,” https://www. consumerfinance.gov/administrative-adjudication-proceedings/ (accessed March 23, 2023), and 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1081—Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings, https://www.law.cornell.edu/ cfr/text/12/part-1081 (accessed March 23, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Tuberville, Tommy

Making America's Food Safer Act

119/s/4974

Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025

119/s/9

Veterans National Traumatic Brain Injury Treatment Act

119/s/2737

Back to All Bills