While there are a lot of these "messaging bills" that do serve purely political purposes - see <a href="https://rollcall.com/2024/07/25/messaging-bills-are-loud-but-do-voters-hear-them/" rel="nofollow">https://rollcall.com/2024/07/25/messaging-bills-are-loud-but...</a> for a somewhat informal discussion of their modern use - there are many historical examples of Congress using its Article I "power of the purse" to limit the executive branch's ability to fund military operations in foreign countries: see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:U.S._congressional_opposition_to_war" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:U.S._congressional_op...</a> for a number of examples.<p>To my knowledge, at no time since the founding of NATO has any member of Congress considered such a bill necessary to protect other NATO members from the U.S. executive branch's own aggressions. But these are the times we live in.
H.R. 1936 is a bill in the United States Congress, to prohibit funds for the Armed Forces to engage in operations to invade or seize territory from Canada, the Republic of Panama, or the self-governing territory of Greenland.