Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have any prosecutors or grand juries charged Trump with espionage, treason, or seditious-conspiracy statutes?
Executive summary
Federal prosecutors have charged Donald Trump under the Espionage Act (primarily 18 U.S.C. §793(e)) in the classified-documents case — the indictments include dozens of counts tied to unlawful retention of national defense information (reports say 31–37 Espionage Act–related counts across versions of reporting) [1] [2] [3]. By contrast, available reporting shows prosecutors did not bring criminal treason charges and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6–related indictment stopped short of charging Trump with seditious conspiracy, though others (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers) were convicted of seditious-conspiracy counts [4] [5] [6].
1. Espionage Act: prosecutors did charge Trump — but which provision matters
Multiple outlets report that the classified‑documents indictment against Trump includes many counts under the Espionage Act, specifically charges tied to willful retention/unauthorized possession of national‑defense information (18 U.S.C. §793(e)); accounts cite roughly 31 counts under that statutory framework as part of a broader 37‑count or similar indictment [1] [2] [3]. Legal observers note the provision used targets possession/retention, not traditional “spy” activity, and that the Espionage Act reaches a wide range of conduct beyond espionage for a foreign power [7] [8].
2. “Not being a spy” — why the Espionage Act charge isn’t the same as an espionage narrative
News organizations emphasize that charging someone under the Espionage Act does not require the defendant be a foreign agent or “spy.” Reporting explains Trump is accused of unlawful retention of national‑defense documents, a statutory theory prosecutors have used in other high‑profile cases and distinct from selling secrets to an adversary [9] [7] [2]. Commentators and scholars also question whether the century‑old Espionage Act is the ideal fit for public‑official misconduct, but that debate is separate from the fact of the charges reported [10].
3. Treason: no criminal treason charges reported against Trump
Across the provided sources, criminal treason charges against Trump are not reported. Analyses point out treason is narrowly defined by the Constitution (levying war against the U.S. or adherence to enemies) and is rarely used; commentators have explained why treason is legally difficult to bring and why prosecutors did not pursue it in the major cases involving Trump [11] [12]. Opinion pieces and advocacy pieces may call Trump’s conduct treasonous in rhetorical terms, but the news record in these sources shows no grand jury or prosecutor actually filed treason charges [13] [12].
4. Seditious conspiracy: prosecutions for Jan. 6 actors, but not for Trump in the main indictments
Federal prosecutors successfully charged and secured convictions for seditious conspiracy against members of groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers tied to the Jan. 6 attack [5] [6]. However, when the Justice Department indicted Trump over the Jan. 6‑related conduct, the charging document deliberately avoided alleging sedition or seditious conspiracy against him; analysts noted the special counsel’s team chose other conspiracy, obstruction and fraud‑related charges instead [4] [6]. Reporting frames this as a prosecutorial judgment tied to evidentiary burdens and constitutional concerns [4].
5. How prosecutors appear to have weighed legal strategy and evidence
Law‑news coverage and legal commentary in the sources say prosecutors chose statutes they believed they could prove in court: Espionage Act counts for document retention in the Mar‑a‑Lago matter, and conspiracy/obstruction and fraud‑type counts for the Jan. 6 investigation — leaving sedition and treason off the table in the major Trump indictments [10] [4] [6]. The Proud Boys/Oath Keepers seditious‑conspiracy convictions are cited as precedent that the Justice Department can pursue that statute successfully against organized actors, but the department nonetheless avoided applying it to Trump in his indictment [5] [6].
6. Competing narratives and political messaging to watch
Political actors and some commentators characterize the absence or presence of specific charges through partisan lenses: defenders argue that Espionage Act charges are overbroad or misplaced; critics say treason or sedition would be more accurate descriptions of conduct in other contexts [10] [4] [13]. Meanwhile, Trump himself and allies often use the language of “treason” or “sedition” against opponents and sometimes threaten criminal referrals — but the available reporting shows those are political accusations, not charging decisions by prosecutors [14] [15] [16]. Note: available sources do not mention any grand jury or prosecutor having filed treason or sedition/seditious‑conspiracy counts against Trump himself in the principal federal indictments cited above.
7. Bottom line for readers
Factually: prosecutors charged Trump under the Espionage Act (retention/unauthorized possession counts) in the classified‑documents case [1] [2]. Factually: prosecutors did not, in the reporting provided here, charge Trump with treason or with seditious‑conspiracy counts in his main indictments; separate defendants tied to Jan. 6 have been convicted of seditious conspiracy [5] [4] [6]. Sources differ in legal judgment and political framing about whether prosecutors chose the right statutes; those disagreements are part of the public debate reflected in the reporting [10] [4].