The Republican-led House on Thursday rejected a measure aimed at blocking President Donald Trump from carrying out further military strikes on Iran without congressional approval, delivering a victory for the White House even as lawmakers voice deep unease about the widening conflict.The War Powers Resolution, introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, failed in a 212-219 vote after Republican leaders rallied enough support to defeat it, allowing the Administration to continue its military campaign against Iran for now without seeking new authorization from Congress. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]All House Democrats voted for the resolution except for 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 joined the majority of Democrats as the only Republicans voting in favor of it.The House vote came a day after the Senate blocked a similar effort led by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. That measure failed to clear a procedural hurdle in a 47–53 vote largely along party lines, with most Republicans opposing it and most Democrats backing it.Taken together, the two votes amounted to the first test of whether Congress was willing to curb a conflict that Trump initiated without first seeking their approval. The outcome made clear it is not, at least for now. Read TIME’s latest cover story: Trump’s WarEven if both chambers had approved the resolution, Trump was expected to veto it. Overriding a presidential veto requires two-thirds support in both chambers, and Congress has never overridden a presidential veto of a war powers resolution. That made Thursday’s vote in the House a largely symbolic rebuke of the President’s actions rather than a practical one, a test of whether enough Republicans were willing to buck party leadership to advance the measure. The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, was designed to check precisely that kind of unilateral action. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and bars armed forces from remaining in such conflicts for more than 60 days—with a possible 30-day extension—without a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force. It also allows any member of Congress to force a vote on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces. Iran is the eighth country the U.S. military has struck during Trump’s second term.For some lawmakers, the vote on a war powers resolution carried echoes of past moments when Congress went on record in matters of war. The 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq was intensely scrutinized in the years that followed, as the conflict dragged on and its underlying intelligence was challenged. Lawmakers who supported that authorization were repeatedly pressed to defend their positions, particularly when seeking higher office. Trump did send a legally required notification letter to Congress on Monday, days after launching sweeping airstrikes on Iranian targets. But in it, he described the mission as advancing national interests and eliminating Iran as a global threat—language that differed from the Administration’s public claims that the strikes were necessary to head off an imminent danger to American troops and allies in the region.That shifting rationale has deepened skepticism among Democrats, many of whom emerged from classified briefings on Tuesday saying they were unconvinced that the Administration had demonstrated an immediate threat that justified bypassing Congress.“Donald Trump is not a king,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on the House floor on Wednesday. “If he believes the war with Iran is in our national interest, then he must come to Congress and make the case.”Speaker Mike Johnson warned that limiting the President’s authority while American forces are already engaged would weaken the United States. “The operation has been necessary, lawful and effective,” Johnson said, arguing that reversing course would play “right into the hands of the enemy.”Lawmakers said Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned in the briefing that operations could intensify in the coming days. At one point, Rubio publicly suggested the strikes were prompted by Israel’s plans to attack Iran and concerns that American forces could face retaliation. Later, he and others emphasized Iran’s ballistic missile development as an imminent and serious threat. In other settings, the President has framed the mission more broadly as an effort to “neutralize Iran’s malign activities.”Read More: Rubio’s Rationale on Iran Strikes Gets Messier, as Congress Demands AnswersIn a phone interview with TIME on Wednesday, Trump acknowledged the possibility that Americans should be worried about retaliatory attacks at home. “I guess,” he said. “But I think they’re worried about that all the time. We think about it all the time. We plan for it. But yeah, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”