FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL — Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., on Thursday reintroduced legislation that would prohibit U.S.-based money services businesses from using central bank digital currencies issued by the Communist Party of China, including the digital yuan. If enacted, the “Chinese CBDC Prohibition Act” would prohibit money services businesses from engaging in any transaction that involves a central bank digital currency issued by the People’s Republic of China. The bill would apply to entities such as Venmo, Zelle, currency dealers, and the U.S. Postal Service, making it unlawful for them to process such transactions. “No money services business may engage in any transaction, directly or indirectly, that involves a central bank digital currency issued by the People’s Republic of China,” the bill shared with the Daily Signal states. In a statement to the Daily Signal, Scott argued that allowing U.S. businesses to transact in a Chinese digital currency could expose Americans to surveillance risks and weaken U.S. economic competitiveness. He has long opposed the development and adoption of central bank digital currencies, particularly those linked to foreign adversaries. “The dollar is the reserve currency of the world and the CCP wants to undermine our leadership with a digital currency they can track and manipulate,” Scott told the Daily Signal. “The digital yuan is just another tool used by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on its people and all those who use it. Americans deserve privacy when it comes to their financial transactions.” According to the senator, China’s digital currency allows its government to monitor financial activity and potentially restrict access to funds. His legislation seeks to block its use in the United States, citing concerns about privacy, national security, and economic stability. The bill would make transactions involving Chinese government-issued digital currency unlawful and, according to Scott’s office, is intended to protect American consumers, businesses, and the broader economy. Scott previously introduced the legislation in 2023, along with Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, upon the announcement of the Chinese digital yuan. “The digital yuan is just another tool used by the Chinese Communist Party to spy on its people and all those who use it. It is an obvious power grab and an attempt to increase communist-state-control over people’s personal finances,” Scott said at the time. “Secretary Xi and his thugs have no business playing big brother to American citizens and how they spend their money.” “That is why I am fighting to prevent this problem from ever becoming someone’s reality. We must stand up against the CCP’s obvious spy tactics and pass the Chinese CBDC Prohibition Act today,” Scott added.

The U.S. Court of the Southern District of Mississippi has signed off on a motion to drop a lawsuit alleging two Mississippi billionaires defrauded a pandemic-era program. The judge’s dismissal on Thursday came after plaintiffs entered a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on May 15. As reported by Mississippi Today, Judge Kristi H. Johnson signed off on the plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the lawsuit with prejudice after the federal government declined to litigate the case itself. After the California attorneys moved to withdraw the lawsuit, federal officials said the dismissal aligned with the government’s broader priorities. Baxter Kruger, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, said acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche consented to the dismissal, citing a determination that ending the case was “commensurate with the public interest” and that it did not justify continued use of government resources. Kruger—who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2025—also asked the court to keep all sealed documents in the case under seal, a request that U.S. District Judge Kristi H. Johnson granted. “Today, I’m pleased to announce that the California trial lawyers who recklessly sued Tommy and Jim Duff with respect to the PPP program have voluntarily dismissed their frivolous and unfounded case. This is a complete and total victory for the Duff brothers,” Matthew Miller, the attorney representing the defendant, told the Daily Signal after the court formally dismissed the case. “The voluntary dismissal comes just days after the Duffs asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of merit,” Miller continued. “From the beginning of this baseless case, we have stated that the facts show that the Duffs, under the guidance of competent accounting and legal professionals, always followed the law in obtaining PPP loans during the COVID-19 pandemic to help protect their employees.” Relator LLC, the plaintiff, is a group formed by California attorneys Anoush Hakimi and Peter Shahriari, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In a notice of voluntary dismissal, attorney Kristen Nelson—who represents the pair—cited the federal government’s decision not to litigate the case. The filing also stated that the lawsuit’s factual claims did not factor into the decision to dismiss. “The dismissal is not the result of any settlement or payment, and no party has paid or agreed to pay any consideration in connection with the dismissal,” Nelson wrote. “No claims have been adjudicated on the merits, and Relator has elected to dismiss its claims without further amendment.” The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi after Miller argued in court that the case lacked ties to California. In his statement to the Daily Signal, Miller also rebutted the allegations of any wrongdoing from the companies when they applied for the loans. “This lawsuit was a purely meritless attempt by trial lawyers to extract an unwarranted settlement,” the attorney wrote. “The Duffs remained focused throughout COVID on supporting their 16,000 employees, many of whom were kept employed, even when many Duff businesses were forced to cut back.” Miller also told the Daily Signal that he will “continue to evaluate all legal remedies against the plaintiffs against the plaintiff, Relator LLC, and its California lawyers, due to the incredibly frivolous nature and outrageous false allegations set forth in the lawsuit.”” The lawsuit, filed Feb. 20, 2024, accused Thomas and James Duff and several of their companies—including Duff Capital Investors, Southern Tire Mart, Pine Belt Motors, and Pine Belt CDJR—of improperly obtaining Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. The complaint alleged the companies should not have applied for the loans because they underreported employee counts and had sufficient resources through their broader conglomerate. In a previous statement to the Mississippi Today, Miller added that the loans were “lawfully obtained, fully disclosed and reviewed by banks, the SBA and federal attorneys,” and described the case as “parasitic, web-scraped lawsuit that courts have repeatedly rejected.” “The allegations were also independently reviewed by the Department of Justice which, after this review, declined to intervene in this lawsuit,” Miller continued. Relator LLC, which filed the Qui Tam complaint, claimed Southern Tire Mart had roughly 1,300 employees and $600 million in annual revenue, while Duff Capital Investors allegedly employs more than 10,000 people. As stated by the Mississippi Today, the lawsuit claimed the companies reported having 496 employees to qualify for PPP loans, which were limited to businesses with 500 or fewer employees. The lawsuit was filed under the False Claims Act, which allows private individuals—known as relators—to bring qui tam actions on behalf of the federal government to recover funds obtained through alleged fraud. The plaintiffs behind the lawsuit in this case, Anoush Hakimi and Peter Shahriar, represented Relator LLC. A Qui Tam lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by an individual or entity that works on behalf of the federal government alleging the misuse or defrauding of federal loans. According to the complaint, the Duff companies secured three PPP loans totaling approximately $6.5 million. The now-dismissed lawsuit claimed that “two billionaire brothers, reported to be the wealthiest two individuals in Mississippi, used a handful of their many companies,” “to misappropriate millions of dollars from the US Federal government’s Paycheck Protection Program.” As seen in the court filings obtained by Mississippi Today, attorneys for the Duff brothers denied the allegations in court filings, arguing the loans were obtained lawfully and used to keep “hard-working people employed and paid.” Additionally, as seen in the court filings and in the attorney’s statement to the Daily Signal, the defendants believe Relator LLC leaned on inflammatory rhetoric instead of factual evidence. The defendants claimed that the complaint improperly treated franchisees as affiliated entities, even though federal law expressly allowed franchisees to qualify for PPP loans. According to the filings, Duff-affiliated franchisees identified themselves as such in their loan applications. Some entities cited in the complaint, including Pine Belt Chevrolet and Pine Belt CDJR, operate as franchised dealerships for major automobile manufacturers. “The result of section 636(a)(36)(D)(iv)(II) was that an entity with a franchise identifier code could get a PPP loan even if a parent company had thousands of employees spread across subsidiaries,” the defendants say in the filing. “Beneficiaries of this new rule commonly included car-dealership franchisees by auto manufacturers and franchisees of restaurant or hotel chains.” Furthermore, Miller also moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the plaintiff failed to meet requirements under federal law mandating that whistleblowers possess independent knowledge of alleged violations prior to public disclosure. The Department of Justice notes the law was strengthened by Congress in 1986 to encourage such actions, allowing private citizens to act as “private attorneys general” in pursuing fraud claims. Relator LLC has filed similar cases in the past. In one such case, a federal court in California ordered Los Angeles businessman Yosef Y. Manela to pay more than $800,000 after finding he violated the False Claims Act in connection with PPP loans The Daily Signal contacted Grafton Bragg, one of Relator’s attorneys, the Department of Justice, and U.S. District Judge Kristi Johnson, but did not receive comment.

As he seeks a comeback, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, spoke with CNN about what another term of his would look like, sparking chatter about his stance on Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During the interview, CNN’s Manu Raju asked about the leftward shift of his party. “Since you left Washington, there are some issues in which your party has grown increasingly to the left on, [including] abolishing ICE,” Raju pointed out, asking if Brown supported that. “I don’t. I’m not paying enough attention to know what votes are coming up,” Brown said. He offered a similar response when Raju asked again if he supports abolishing ICE. “I’m not close enough to make those decisions at this point. I think for sure we need rules around ICE,” Brown responded. When “Inside Politics” aired on Sunday, Raju framed it as an issue on which “Brown is showing caution.” New — A dive into #ohsen and Sherrod Brown comeback bid— I talk to him about whether voters want fresh blood, his Epstein attack ads on Husted, his views on ICE, whether he’ll retain seniority in Senate— I tracked down Husted and asked him about Iran, Trump and Wexner donations pic.twitter.com/FgERLCiZgo— Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 17, 2026 In a statement to the Daily Signal, Brown campaign spokesperson Lauren Chou made it clear where the candidate stands. “Sherrod Brown does not support abolishing ICE. Sherrod’s focus is on keeping Ohio’s communities safe by getting violent criminals and human traffickers off the streets and ensuring those are the individuals ICE focuses on,” she said. Brown has expressed opposition to abolishing ICE more clearly in the past. “No, you shouldn’t abolish ICE. You should reform ICE and make it work better than it is,” Brown said in 2018. Republicans used the moment to target Brown with a clip from that part of the interview. RNC Research noted Brown served in office for decades, calling the former senator a “Total fraud.” Sherrod Brown – who was in Congress for 30 years – claims he isn't "paying enough attention" to know whether ICE should be abolished.CNN: "Do you support abolishing ICE?"BROWN: "I'm not close enough to make those decisions."Total fraud. pic.twitter.com/YJPp4Fo5ps— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 17, 2026 Sen. Jon Husted, who is running against Brown, also capitalized on the CNN interview through his campaign staff. “Not close enough to make those decisions? No one was closer to the chaos coming out of Washington than Sen. Sherrod Brown,” Husted campaign spokesperson Amy Natoce told the Daily Signal. “He spent more than 30 years in Washington failing hardworking Ohio families. Now he’s portraying himself as an outsider in the hopes that voters will forget his liberal agenda. It didn’t work in 2024, and it won’t work now.” The Ohio Republican Party also responded to the CNN clip, urging Ohioans to keep Brown out of politics. “He’ll say anything to get elected. We fired him once, we’ll do it again in November,” claimed one social media post by the organization. “A bigger phony politician does not exist in America,” claimed another from Ohio GOP Chairman Alex Triantafilou. At the national level, the National Republican Senatorial Committee called the moment “weak.” The Republican National Committee’s Midwest regional communications director, Hunter Lovell, also posted the clip, writing, “Shady Sherrod Brown spent 32 years in Washington accomplishing next to nothing.” As a way to boost Husted, Lovell pointed out that “Ohio voters already rejected Brown’s failed record once,” adding that Husted “is prepared to retire this empty-suit politician for good this November.” The race between Brown and Husted is rated a “Toss-Up” for the 2026 midterms. Husted was appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine to replace now-Vice President JD Vance, triggering a special election. The winner will be up for reelection in 2028.

The Daily Signal’s Senior National Security and Legal Analyst Mehek Cooke said Democrats face a deepening identity crisis and are failing to respond to voter concerns, warning it could cost them in the upcoming midterm elections. Appearing Thursday on Fox News’ “The Faulkner Focus,” Cooke argued that Democrats have yet to meaningfully reckon with their 2024 elechttps://youtu.be/nF3XIolhhi8tion losses, dismissing internal post-election reviews as inadequate. “They are a day late and millions of voters now too short as we are looking at the midterms,” Cooke said of a post-election autopsy report released on Thursday by Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin. “This was not an autopsy—it was a confession on the Democrat side that they lost touch with millions of working-class, young men … and they still haven’t learned anything.” Cooke criticized Democrats for being “border blind” amid surging illegal immigration and for overcomplicating core issues affecting voters. “They are blaming themselves and then their TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome] is overcomplicating the fact that voters today matter the most,” she said. “That’s how you deliver—by addressing the economy and ensuring working-class Americans are heard.” Cooke predicted electoral consequences, arguing that Democrats “don’t know who they are” and are grappling with “the biggest identity crisis they are facing.” The segment also turned to controversy surrounding a Texas congressional candidate, Maureen Galindo, who won the Democrat primary in March before drawing backlash over anti-Zionist remarks. Cooke condemned the comments as dangerous and reflective of a broader trend. “Anti-Semitism does not belong in America, but guess what? Democrats have allowed it to find a safe haven,” Cooke said. “This was the number one candidate in her primary—which means Democrat voters knew exactly what they were choosing.” Cooke warned against dismissing such rhetoric as isolated, arguing instead that it reflects a growing radicalism. “We don’t need another American Holocaust,” she said, calling the candidate’s comments an attempt to “isolate Americans on our religious and political ideology.” Cooke urged Republicans to forcefully confront what she described as rising anti-Jewish sentiment. “This is the moment for the Republican Party,” she said. “We need to call out the hate, stand up, man up, and tell Americans what is really happening.” She concluded that political leaders must stop fueling division and address the concerns of everyday Americans before it’s too late.

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on whether to confirm former Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers to a vacancy on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals notably mentioned Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. During Wednesday’s hearing, Republican and Democrat members brought up the justice’s viewpoint on commenting on the 2020 election. In one of the more dramatic exchanges, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked Flowers who won the 2020 election. “It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on the outcomes of any election, except to say, legally speaking, Joe Biden was certified,” Flowers replied, echoing the response Jackson gave when she was a federal judge. Pathetic puppets—Trump judicial nominees admit to rehearsing & practicing with the White House their evasive, identical responses to my questions. No independence. No integrity. pic.twitter.com/LATrPfItDG— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) May 21, 2026 When Blumenthal kept pressing him for an answer, Flowers called Jackson’s argument persuasive and said it wouldn’t be appropriate for him to answer. Blumenthal, clearly irritated at the exchange, replied, “Frankly, I know Justice Jackson. You’re no Justice Jackson.” During opening statements, Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, accused his Democrat colleagues of committing “political theater” with their questions about certifying the 2020 election. Grassley stressed that when Jackson was asked if she ever commented on the 2016 or 2020 election results, the justice replied that “it would be inappropriate … to publicly weigh into any subject of political debate.” “Justice Jackson, like every nominee to come before this committee, didn’t think it was appropriate for a judicial nominee to weigh into a political debate concerning the results of the 2020 election,” Grassley said, adding that his Democrat colleagues were not “outraged” at her response. “Her answer then, like the answers of the judicial nominees recently, was entirely prudent and unremarkable,” he also added. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has something in common with every Trump-nominated judge this Congress: she didn’t believe judicial nominees should weigh in on a political debate regarding the 2020 election.When KBJ said it, Democrats didn’t blink any eye.Yet Democrats – echoed… pic.twitter.com/5F6idGHRWC— Senate Judiciary Republicans (@SenJudiciaryGOP) May 20, 2026 Flowers referenced Grassley’s opening statement in his own responses throughout the hearing. The exchange grabbed the attention of many Ohio conservatives, including State Reps. Brian Stewart and Adam Mathews, Turning Point USA’s Gabe Guidarini, and Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer, who all chimed in on X.