President Joe Biden used a rare Oval Office address Thursday night to forcefully advocate for aiding both Israel and Ukraine.

And he laid out a dark vision of what would happen should that aid, along with America’s larger commitment to defending democracy, not be delivered.

“History has taught us, when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and the world keep rising,” Biden said.

Biden’s speech came a day after he returned from a whirlwind trip to Israel to stand in solidarity with its longtime ally. Ahead of what could be an escalation of violence in the Middle East, Biden laid out the stakes in clear terms, saying that while Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hamas “represent different threats,” they both want to “completely annihilate a neighboring democracy.”

The president spoke quickly at first, reading from a teleprompter, before slowing his rhetoric as his address drifted toward more somber points. He coughed at times, and pointed his finger down on the desk at others. More generally, he offered a tone of sobriety, describing a world with a number of serious fires in desperate need of being put out.

Biden linked the fresh fight in Israel to the invasion of Ukraine, trying to revive fading support for a war that has dragged on for more than a year and a half.

He used the primetime moment to make the broad case to the public as to why a pair of conflicts on the other side of the globe were so vital to American national security. And he did so by stressing the need to combat the rise of authoritarianism. Biden is poised to make a massive $100 billion spending request on Friday, which would include assistance for Ukraine and Israel.

He called it “an urgent budget request” that would provide “an unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security.”

“It’s a smart investment that’s going to pay dividends for American security for generations. Help us keep American troops out of harm’s way. Help us build a world that is safer, more peaceful, more prosperous for our children and grandchildren,” Biden said.

The president will have to navigate a series of ideological differences if he seeks all of the aid in a single congressional vote. While there is wide support for funding Israel, a small number of vocal Republicans have begun balking at sending more aid to Ukraine. All funding could end up being complicated by the political paralysis that has gripped Congress.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been without a speaker now for weeks, making it impossible to pass any legislation, including the aid that Israel has said it urgently needs. Republicans on Thursday ditched a plan to temporarily empower Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) as interim speaker amid ongoing divides in the caucus, once again placing the House at an impasse.

Biden on Thursday also mourned the lost Palestinian lives, two days after a rocket exploded at a hospital in Gaza, reportedly killing hundreds of civilians. He stated, definitively, that Israel was not responsible for the explosion. But he also noted that people in Gaza were in desperate need of food, water and medicine.

His recognition of the magnitude of tragedy also striking Palestinians — among the strongest since the beginning of the conflict — comes amid criticism from top Arab American and Muslim leaders about the White House’s posture during the crisis.

The president also named Wadea Al-Fayoume, the 6-year-old Palestinian American boy who authorities say was stabbed to death because he was Muslim.

“We can’t stand by and stand silent when this happens,” Biden said. “We must without equivocation denounce antisemitism. We must also without equivocation denounce Islamophobia. And to all you hurting, I want you to know I see you. You belong. And I want to say this to you: You’re all American.”

Underscoring the importance of the moment, the address was only the second time Biden has delivered formal remarks from the Oval Office since becoming president. In June, he spoke from behind the Resolute Desk about a bipartisan agreement to avoid defaulting on the nation’s debt.

Biden has earned kudos among Israel’s defenders for standing firmly with the country. But his trip to the country was marred by conflict in the region. A summit scheduled for Amman featuring Jordanian, Palestinian and Egyptian leaders was canceled after the explosion at a hospital in Gaza. And while Biden was still on the ground in Tel Aviv, protests across the region dramatically escalated, including demonstrations at the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon’s capital. U.S. officials have expressed deep private concert that the unrest in the region could explode once Israel begins its seemingly imminent ground operation into Gaza.

In many ways, Biden’s overarching message Thursday night was an illustration of the lofty themes he has hit throughout his presidency: reframing the century ahead as a battle between democracies and autocracies.

Donald Trump’s argument that as a former president he enjoys “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution is sharply refuted by nearly all of American history, special counsel Jack Smith argued Thursday.

In a 54-page filing taking on Trump’s sweeping bid to derail the federal criminal case against him over his efforts to upend the results of the 2020 election, Smith’s team cited the prosecution of Aaron Burr, the pardon of Richard Nixon, the civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Trump’s own comments on his impeachment trial in 2021 for allegedly inciting an insurrection at the Capitol.

In every instance, prosecutors said, the Constitution and those tasked with upholding it make clear that former presidents can be prosecuted criminally for actions they took while in office.

“The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling,” prosecutor James Pearce and other lawyers from Smith’s team argued. “It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member; a president who instructs his FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”

The dispute is the first substantive showdown over the legal framework that will define the prosecution of Trump for conspiracies he allegedly led while attempting to subvert the 2020 election.

Trump’s lawyers contended earlier this month that he simply can’t be prosecuted for efforts to overturn that election because they related to his official responsibility as president to safeguard federal elections. But prosecutors said Trump’s efforts to illegally pressure state and federal officials to subvert a lawful election were fundamentally political in nature and not part of his job. And in any case, prosecutors added, such a sweeping assertion would turn the Constitution on its head — particularly because the founding document envisions the prosecution of former presidents for crimes that may occur while in office.

While Trump is known for wrapping himself in the flag, sometimes literally, Smith’s team painted his legal position as essentially un-American — beginning their brief by rejecting his own comparisons to Washington and Lincoln.

“Throughout American history, there have been federal criminal prosecutions of high-ranking officials from all three branches of the federal government — including the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, Senators, Representatives, and judges — as well as of governors, mayors, sheriffs, and more,” prosecutors wrote. “Far from chilling public officials in the exercise of their duties, these prosecutions have helped ensure that officials and citizens alike know that ours is a system based on the rule of law, applicable without fear or favor to even the most powerful public officials.”

Well into their brief, Smith’s prosecutors cited one authority the judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, is undoubtedly familiar with: her 2021 decision rejecting Trump’s bid to shield his presidential papers from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. “Presidents are not kings,” Chutkan famously wrote.

While that was a civil dispute, prosecutors contend the rationale she cited two years ago applies even more strongly to criminal prosecutions.

“The principle that no one is above the law underlies the universal consensus that a president may be subject to criminal prosecution at some point,” the brief says.

Prosecutors also sharply rejected Trump’s contention that his acquittal in a 2021 impeachment trial — for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — barred his criminal prosecution on the matter two years later. Notably, they said, Trump took the precise opposite position during that trial, contending that he couldn’t be put on trial by the Senate as a former president because he was now subject to potential criminal prosecution.

Smith’s team also cited the statements of more than 30 Republican senators — including GOP leader Mitch McConnell — who agreed with Trump at the time, rejecting the Senate trial because they viewed the criminal justice system as the proper forum for accountability.

The impeachment charge, prosecutors added, was about inciting the Jan. 6 attack, while his criminal charges allege that he mounted three conspiracies to subvert state and federal election processes for months before the violence at the Capitol.

Trump faces two criminal cases focused on his attempt to remain in office notwithstanding the election results: the federal one brought by a grand jury in Washington in early August and another brought by a state-court grand jury in Fulton County, Ga., a couple of weeks later.

The resolution of the presidential immunity issue in the D.C. case could influence the case in Georgia, particularly if Trump pursues a pretrial appeal and the immunity issue ends up landing quickly before an appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump is also pursuing an aggressive immunity argument in a series of civil lawsuits brought against him by people injured or terrorized during the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. A federal judge in Washington rejected his absolute immunity claim in those suits, but Trump has appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rep. Dean Phillips has begun signaling to fellow House members that he plans to launch a challenge to President Joe Biden.

Two people familiar with the discussions said that the Minnesota Democrat has told some colleagues of his intent to run, though a third person who has talked to Phillips recently said he had demurred when asked. That person said Phillips was clearly considering it but when asked point blank whether he was running, replied: “We’ll see.”

Phillips has frequently called for Biden to face a primary challenger, citing the president’s age and arguing that he has a “sense that the country is begging for alternatives.”

And he has taken several steps in recent weeks toward launching a presidential run, including calling New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley last week and reaching out to several potential staffers about working in New Hampshire.

Among those he’s approached are Steve Schmidt, a former Republican consultant, and Bill Fletcher, a Tennessee-based Democratic consultant, according to a person familiar with the nascent campaign. Schmidt and Fletcher did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Messenger first reported Phillips’ outreach to Schmidt.

Phillips and a spokesperson also did not respond to a request for comment.

A Phillips bid would face steep challenges. He’s a three-term congressman squaring off against Biden, who is sitting on more than $91 million in cash and supported by the entire party machinery. And the Democratic National Committee reordered the presidential nominating calendar last year, eliminating Iowa and New Hampshire from the top of the process and elevating South Carolina — a state that rocketed Biden to the nomination in 2020.

Phillips, a millionaire businessman who co-founded the gelato company Talenti Gelato, could self-fund much of his own campaign. But he’s struggled to hire staffers. Bill Burton, a longtime Democratic consultant and Barack Obama campaign veteran, said on X that “someone” approached him “for a conversation” about Phillips, but it was “not something I took seriously even for a second.”

Should Phillips go through with announcing, he will need to quickly get himself on the ballot in key states. He’s already missed the deadline to appear on the ballot in Nevada, the second presidential nominating state for Democrats. South Carolina, the first nominating state in the new calendar, has a balloting deadline of Nov. 10.

But Phillips may opt to skip the new calendar, focusing instead on New Hampshire, which is expected to hold its own unsanctioned primary after losing its first-in-the-nation status. A strong showing there would not net Phillips substantial delegates but it could prove a major embarrassment for Biden.

As such, top New Hampshire Democratic strategists plan to lead a write-in campaign for the president, who is expected to not formally appear on the ballot.