Americans awoke Tuesday to a shocking scene in Baltimore, where a Singapore-flagged container ship crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge, sending multiple motorists and their vehicles into the frigid waters of the Patapsco River. Pictures from the scene show much of the bridge in ruins. Cold weather and strong currents are complicating rescue efforts, officials said. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has declared a state of emergency.

Baltimore Police Commissioner Richard Worley said “there is absolutely no indication that there’s any terrorism” connected to the collapse, which was the latest in a string of high-profile incidents at key American bridges over the past year. In November, a car crashed into a checkpoint at the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls, temporarily snarling traffic at the U.S.-Canada border crossing. And last June, the I-95 bridge in Philadelphia collapsed after a truck hauling gasoline flipped and caught fire, killing the driver. It reopened just two weeks later.

How a container ship could have struck the bridge on the heavily trafficked waterway to a bustling port remains an open question. As the investigation unfolds, the scene in Baltimore is yet another reminder of global dependence on maritime shipping. Container ships and oil tankers already faced major challenges from Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have spent months targeting civilian vessels sailing in and around the Red Sea. The U.S. military has led an expensive, open-ended campaign to counter the Houthi attacks, but the mission has had limited success.

It’s been a long time coming. But the Biden administration seems to have finally run out of patience with Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip — a campaign designed to crush Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that killed more than 1,200 Israelis and took nearly 250 hostages during an Oct. 7 rampage.

At a U.N. Security Council meeting in New York, the Biden administration refused to exercise the U.S. veto to block the latest resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire to the war. It was a sharp change for the U.S., which has traditionally sided with Israel in almost all major U.N. votes and has often blocked one-sided resolutions condemning Israel. The White House defended the move even as Mr. Netanyahu recalled an emergency delegation he had dispatched to Washington to discuss the road ahead in Gaza.

“Our vote does not, I repeat, does not represent a shift in our policy,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters.

But that’s not how it’s playing around the world. In some corners of Europe, there was an immediate recognition that the administration has decided tough talk isn’t enough to convince Israel to change course in Gaza and prevent what U.S. officials fear will be mass civilian casualties in the looming Israeli offensive against the Gaza city of Rafah.

Tensions had been near the boiling point for weeks. Earlier this month, Netanyahu political rival Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s “War Cabinet,” visited Washington and met with top administration officials in a clear sign that the White House was growing increasingly frustrated with Mr. Netanyahu.

As a major fight over government surveillance powers plays out in Washington, Threat Status’ own Mr. Taylor sat down for an exclusive interview with former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker to discuss all aspects of the congressional debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. It is set to expire next month unless lawmakers act.

The controversial provisions in 702 have long divided those who say they’re necessary for U.S. national security and those who argue that they represent a major federal breach of civil liberties and privacy. On Capitol Hill, a key aspect of the debate is whether the FBI should have to obtain a court order before searching its databases for information on American citizens.

“The battle lines have been drawn over the warrant requirement,” Mr. Baker tells Threat Status.

Some specialists say the idea of a warrant requirement, while well-intentioned, could be dangerous.

Could an enemy’s quantum computing breakthrough lead to disaster for America? That’s what NSA Director of Research Gil Herrera is worried about.

The NSA fears a quantum computing breakthrough by America’s adversaries would jeopardize the security of the global economy and allow foes to peer inside top-secret communications systems. The Washington Times’ Ryan Lovelace has a fascinating inside look at the growing fears of an unforeseen advance in quantum technology that could crack encryption systems used to protect everything from financial transactions to sensitive communications involving nuclear weapons.

“If this black swan event happens, then we’re really screwed,” Mr. Herrera said at an event last week.

The U.S. is pushing back against other high-tech threats. The U.S. government on Monday imposed new economic sanctions Monday on a Chinese company linked to Beijing’s Ministry of State Security spy service, accusing the firm of conducting cyberattacks against critical U.S. infrastructure. The Times’ Bill Gertz reports that the Justice Department also indicted seven Chinese state-linked hackers who were charged with targeting senior U.S. officials, including at the White House and in the Senate, along with critics of the Chinese Communist Party, in cyberattacks.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday acknowledged that “radical Islamists” were behind a deadly terrorist attack at a Moscow concert hall last week. The terror group ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the assault, though the Kremlin has also suggested — without evidence — that Ukraine somehow had a hand in the attack as well.

Another U.S. adversary, China, had its own brush with apparent terrorism early Tuesday. A suicide bomber in northwest Pakistan rammed his explosive-laden car into a vehicle, killing five Chinese nationals and their Pakistani driver in the Shangla district, according to Pakistani officials.

The attack in Moscow and other terror incidents around the world have left analysts asking the question: Could it happen here?

Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas says the answer is unequivocally “yes.”

“Does anyone seriously think our enemies would not be encouraged by that previous attack and the Moscow atrocity to conduct a repeat operation in the United States? With such easy access to the country and so many fanatical beliefs floating around the world, what would deter them?” he writes.