Gigantic Ships Are a Danger—and a Lifeline | Online Conspiracies About the Baltimore Bridge Collapse Are Out of Control | The Case Against TikTok Is Thin at Best, and more

The main national security argument for forcing TikTok to sell to a U.S. owner or face an effective ban is that Chinese laws require ByteDance to turn over user data to the Chinese government if requested. That leads to fears that user data could provide a way for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to perform massive surveillance of Americans, and that the party could (and may already) use the algorithms that power TikTok’s feed to manipulate public opinion in the United States to the detriment of U.S. democracy and civil society, and hence tilt the nascent China-U.S. cold war in China’s favor.
Each of these cases rest on very thin reeds. And what’s more, almost all of the threats cited are about what TikTok could potentially do, and not about what it has been or is doing.

Gigantic Ships Are a Danger—and a Lifeline  (Elisabeth Braw, Foreign Policy)
Out of sight, out of mind. That’s the fate of global shipping, even though all of us depend on it for our daily supplies. Everything from bananas to toilet paper to iPhones travels by sea at some point. But we only pay attention when something goes wrong, whether that happens in the Red Sea, the Suez Canal—or underneath what used to be Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge. This week’s accident, which occurred when the container ship Dali lost power and headed straight into a support pillar, has delivered a reminder of the sheer overlooked scale of the shipping industry—and how unprepared many systems are to handle it.
Part of this is the massive size of today’s container vessels themselves. A few minutes before 1:30 a.m. on March 26, the Singapore-flagged container Dali issued a mayday call, which allowed construction workers on the Key Bridge to get a few cars to turn around. Down below, the Dali appeared to have engine problems; camera footage shows its lights flickering before smoke emerges and it hits the support pillar. Within seconds, the bridge collapses into the water. Some of it collapses onto the Dali, too, and with the bridge, cars plunge into the water. At the time of writing, six people are unaccounted for and presumed dead.
Now lots of ordinary citizens around the world are discovering marine websites such as vesselfinder.com and marinetraffic.com, which track merchant vessels. They will have learned that the Dali has a gross tonnage of 95,128 tons, a summer deadweight of 116,851 tons, and that it’s 300 meters (nearly 1,000 feet) long.
When it struck the Key Bridge, the Dali had 4,679 TEU (20-foot-long shipping containers) onboard and was crewed by 22 Indian seafarers, who had been joined by two pilots from Baltimore. Merchant vessels are predominantly crewed by relatively tiny staffs that are usually made up of people from India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Russia, and Eastern European countries. Indeed, it has been decades since it was common for Western Europeans and Americans to go to sea. Today’s seafarers are skilled, but they do hard and lonely work with long absences from home—and when disaster strikes, shipping can be extremely dangerous. Earlier this month, a Houthi attack in the Red Sea cost the lives of three seafarers—two Filipinos and one Vietnamese.
All this is in service of the goods that make our lives so convenient—and which require a vast and largely invisible ocean network to support.

Appeals Court Keeps Texas’ Migrant Arrest Law on Hold  (Kevin McGill, Texas Tribune)
Texas’ plans to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. will remain on hold under a federal appeals court order that likely prevents enforcement of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s new immigration law until a broader decision on whether it is legal.
The 2-1 ruling late Tuesday is the second time a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has put a temporary hold on the the Texas law. It follows a confusing few hours last week the Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect, setting off anger and anticipation along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Texas authorities announced no arrests made under the law during that short window on March 19 before the appellate panel stepped in and blocked it.
In Tuesday’s order, Chief Judge Priscilla Richman cited a 2012 Supreme Court decision that struck down portions of a strict Arizona immigration law, including arrest power. The Texas law is considered by opponents to be the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since that Arizona law.
“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power,” wrote Richman, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush.

The Supreme Court Is Shaming Itself  (Andrew Weissmann and Ryan Goodman, The Atlantic)
Donald Trump is determined to avoid accountability before the general election, and, so far, the U.S. Supreme Court is helping him.
Trump has no legal ground whatsoever to delay a ruling in his plea for presidential immunity. The reason Trump has nevertheless sought to slow down the immunity appeals process is obvious: to postpone the trial date, hopefully pushing it into a time when, as president, he would control the Department of Justice and thus could quash the prosecution altogether. The Supreme Court has shamed itself by being a party to this, when the sole issue before the Court is presidential immunity. By contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith has both law and policy on his side in seeking a prompt determination on immunity and a speedy trial soon thereafter. Yet the Court has ignored all that.
The Supreme Court’s lollygagging is reflected in its scheduling the immunity case for a leisurely April 25 hearing. It’s too late to do anything about that now, but the Court has an opportunity to correct course following oral argument. The justices should press Trump’s counsel on what possible legitimate reason he has to oppose a speedy resolution of the appeal. And then they should rule with dispatch because there is still time, albeit barely, to vindicate the public’s right to a speedy trial.
Trump’s public denigration of the legal system—the incessant claims that the criminal case is a witch hunt—also gives a nation committed to the rule of law a vital interest in holding a public trial where a jury can assess Trump’s actions. Trials can thus serve to restore faith in the justice system.
It is worth noting that when the government seeks its day in court, it simultaneously affords the defendant his day in court—providing him more process, not less. Indeed, the Department of Justice’s so-called 60-day rule—which generally forbids it from taking overt actions in non-public cases with respect to political candidates and closely related people right before an election—is there to avoid a federal prosecutor hurling untested new allegations against a political candidate precisely because he would not have time to clear his reputation before the election. Here, the government is seeking to provide just that forum for Trump to clear his name before the election—to test the criminal allegations against the highest legal standard we have for adjudicating facts—and yet right-wing critics attack Smith. Trump of course wants to avoid that test, but that is an interest the courts should abjure.
The justices still have time to get back on track. Trump’s claim that presidents have absolute immunity should be an easy issue to resolve given these criminal charges. Whether a president should have criminal immunity in some specific circumstances is an abstract question for another day, because efforts to stay in office and use the levers of the presidency are certainly not those specific circumstances. The appeals have delayed matters long enough at the expense of the right of the American people to a fair and speedy trial. Let them not stand in the way of ever having a trial at all.