On Thursday, the Republican-controlled House voted down a proposal intended to prevent President Donald Trump from conducting additional military strikes against Iran without congressional authorization, securing a win for the White House despite lawmakers expressing significant concern over the escalating conflict.

The War Powers Resolution, put forward by Reps. and Thomas Massie, was defeated in a 212-219 vote after Republican leaders gathered sufficient backing to oppose it, enabling the Administration to proceed with its military operations against Iran for the time being without needing new congressional approval.

Every House Democrat supported the resolution, with the exception of Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Greg Landsman of Ohio, and Juan Vargas of California. Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were the sole Republicans to vote in favor, aligning with the majority of Democrats.

The House vote occurred one day after the a comparable initiative led by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. That measure failed to overcome a procedural obstacle in a 47–53 vote that largely followed party lines, with most Republicans opposing it and most Democrats supporting it.

Collectively, the two votes served as the first test of whether Congress was prepared to restrict a conflict that Trump had initiated without first obtaining their approval. The result made it clear that, at least for the present, Congress is not. 

Read TIME’s latest cover story:

Even if both chambers had passed the resolution, Trump was anticipated to veto it. Overriding a presidential veto demands two-thirds support in both chambers, and Congress has never overridden a presidential veto of a war powers resolution. This rendered Thursday’s House vote primarily a symbolic criticism of the President’s actions rather than a practical one, testing whether enough Republicans would defy party leadership to advance the measure. 

Enacted in 1973 following the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution was crafted to counter exactly that type of unilateral action. It mandates that the President inform Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces into hostilities and prohibits armed forces from remaining in such conflicts for more than 60 days—with a potential 30-day extension—without a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force. It also empowers any member of Congress to force a vote on a resolution ordering the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Iran is the the U.S. military has targeted during Trump’s second term.

For certain lawmakers, the vote on the war powers resolution evoked memories of past instances when Congress took a stance on matters of war. The 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq faced intense scrutiny in subsequent years as the conflict persisted and its underlying intelligence was called into question. Lawmakers who backed that authorization were repeatedly asked to defend their positions, especially when pursuing higher office. 

Trump did send a legally mandated notification letter to Congress on Monday, days after launching extensive airstrikes on Iranian targets. However, in the letter, he characterized the mission as furthering national interests and eliminating Iran as a global threat—a description that diverged from the Administration’s public assertions that the strikes were necessary to avert an immediate danger to American troops and allies in the region.

This shifting justification has increased skepticism among Democrats, many of whom left classified briefings on Tuesday stating they were not persuaded that the Administration had shown an immediate threat that warranted bypassing Congress.

“Donald Trump is not a king,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated on the House floor on Wednesday. “If he believes that war with Iran is in our national interest, then he must come to Congress and present his case.”

Speaker Mike Johnson cautioned that restricting the President’s authority while American forces are already involved would weaken the United States. “The operation has been necessary, lawful, and effective,” Johnson stated, contending that reversing course would “play right into the hands of the enemy.”

Lawmakers reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned during the briefing that operations could escalate in the coming days. At one point, Rubio publicly suggested that the strikes were prompted by Israel’s plans to attack Iran and concerns that American forces might face retaliation. Later, he and others highlighted Iran’s ballistic missile development as an immediate and severe threat. In other contexts, the President has framed the mission more broadly as an effort to “neutralize Iran’s malign activities.”

During a phone on Wednesday, Trump acknowledged that Americans might have reason to worry about retaliatory attacks at home. “I guess,” he said. “But I think they’re always worried about that. We think about it constantly. We plan for it. But yeah, you know, we expect some things. As I’ve said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people die.”