After the measure passed on Monday, White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement: “As a lifelong friend of Israel, President Biden has publicly and privately expressed his views that major changes in a democracy to be enduring must have as broad a consensus as possible. It is unfortunate that the vote today took place with the slimmest possible majority.”

While the judicial overhaul is first and foremost an Israeli domestic matter, its passage — even with a narrow margin — signals a shift in how Biden’s pressure is seen in Israel.

In 2021, as yet another war between Israel and Hamas-led Gaza broke out, the president privately urged Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire, even though he at first defended the prime minister in public. When a moment to stop the fighting presented itself, Biden openly demanded that Bibi end the strikes in response to rocket attacks.

The Biden administration boasted that the end of hostilities after 11 days was in large part due to the private tough love that Biden prefers during tricky diplomatic moments.

Biden, who considers the bond between Washington and Jerusalem “bone deep,” tried the same play this time around. The messages of disapproval were first delivered in closed-door meetings and phone calls. The public pressure campaign only spiked in recent days, with Biden and his senior-most officials encouraging Israel not to “rush” the legal changes.

“As democracies, we know that when you’re making or trying to make major changes that are going to have a big societal impact, the best way to do it is by trying to build consensus, by trying to build the most support possible, if you want those changes to be durable. So that’s really what he’s sharing,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at the Aspen Security Forum last week.

The circumstances surrounding the judicial reforms greatly differ from the violence that killed at least 10 Israelis and 260 Palestinians. But the push by Netanyahu’s government to neuter the Supreme Court has roiled the nation, leading to weeks of protest by Israelis who fear their democracy is in danger and 10,000 Israeli Defense Forces reservists to suspend their volunteer duties.

Israel’s Netanyahu-led parliament’s decision to pass the reforms anyway dealt a blow to its opponents and the playbook Biden likes to use.

There have been far larger disagreements between Israel and the United States. Still, Biden and his team have rarely gone beyond rhetoric to pressure Israel, avoiding the use of other potential leverage.

The president has ruled out linking the billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Israel to changes in its behavior. He also has kept many, perhaps most, of the pro-Israel policies imposed by then-President Donald Trump.

The Biden team recently named a point person to help Israel bring more Arab partners into the Abraham Accords. It has not tried in any meaningful way to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Days ago, Biden gave Israel a long-sought prize: A shot at getting into a program that would let Israelis travel visa free to the United States.

When asked at the Aspen Security Forum last week if it was becoming harder for the United States to defend Israel at the United Nations, the U.S. ambassador to the world body, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, didn’t directly answer, instead stressing the closeness of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

But some suggest that even the strongest American disapproval would’ve failed to change the Israeli prime minister’s mind.

“I’m confident that Netanyahu has been fully aware of the dangerous implications of the judicial overhaul legislation all along, but losing his coalition was just not a price he was willing to pay,” said Guy Ziv, an American University professor who lectures on the U.S.-Israel relationship. “He is driven by his political and personal needs, which trump national security, economic considerations and relations with the United States.”

Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, said on the sidelines in Aspen that the Biden-led pressure wasn’t about “dictating or lecturing,” but rather taking a “principled position on this that is judicious, but straightforward — and that’s how we deal with our best friends.”