Fact check: What are the specific requirements for treason charges under US law?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, treason under US law has very specific and narrow requirements established by the Constitution and further refined by Supreme Court interpretations.

Constitutional Definition:

The US Constitution limits treason to exactly two types of conduct ^{[1] [2]}:

• "Levying war" against the United States
• "Adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort"

Supreme Court Interpretations:

The Supreme Court has interpreted these offenses extremely narrowly ^{[1] [2]}:

• "Levying war" requires an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design ^[2]
• "Adhering to enemies" requires a person to adhere to an enemy and give that enemy "aid and comfort" with the specific intent to betray the United States ^{[1] [2]}

Legal Requirements:

The federal crime is codified under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 ^[3], and prosecutors must prove specific intent to betray the United States ^{[1] [3]}. The offense also requires demonstrable overt acts in proving treason ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Historical Rarity:

The analyses reveal that treason prosecutions have essentially disappeared from American jurisprudence ^[1]. Only one person has been charged with treason since 1954 ^[1], and the US government has successfully convicted fewer than 12 Americans for treason in its entire history ^[4]. Notable cases include Aaron Burr, Tokyo Rose, and Adam Gadahn ^[4].

Prosecutorial Alternatives:

A crucial missing context is that federal prosecutors now prefer alternative charges rather than pursuing treason cases ^[1]. The government can pursue non-treason charges such as violating the Espionage Act or the Trading with the Enemy Act without needing to satisfy the strict procedural requirements of the Treason Clause ^[1].

Political Misuse:

The analyses show that treason accusations are often made without legal basis, as demonstrated by President Trump accusing former President Obama of "treason" without providing evidence ^[2]. This highlights how the term is frequently misused in political discourse.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward request for legal information. However, the analyses reveal important context about common misconceptions surrounding treason charges:

Constitutional Limitations:

One analysis specifically fact-checks claims that the Constitution defines treason as government leaving "borders not protected" - this is explicitly false, as Article 3, Section 3 defines treason only as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" and does not mention borders ^[5].

Political Commentary vs. Legal Definition:

Some sources attempt to expand the definition beyond constitutional limits, with one source discussing "betrayal of the sovereign people" as potential treason ^[6]. However, this represents political commentary rather than accurate legal definition, as the Constitution strictly limits treason to the two specific conducts mentioned above.

The analyses demonstrate that treason is one of the most narrowly defined crimes in American law, deliberately constrained by the founders to prevent political persecution while still protecting national security.