Fact check: What are the specific acts that constitute treason under US law, according to 18 U.S.C. § 2381?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, 18 U.S.C. § 2381 defines treason through two specific acts:

• Levying war against the United States ^{[1] [2] [3]}
• Adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere ^{[1] [2] [3]}

The complete statutory text establishes that "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason" ^[2].

Critical legal requirements for conviction include proving the defendant committed one of these enumerated acts with the specific intent to betray the United States ^{[3] [1]}. The constitutional foundation for this definition stems from Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which limits treason to "only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" ^[4].

Penalties under the statute include death, imprisonment for not less than five years, fines of not less than $10,000, and permanent disqualification from holding any federal office ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question focuses narrowly on the statutory definition but omits several crucial contextual elements:

• Constitutional limitations: The definition is constrained by Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, which deliberately restricts treason to only these two specific acts ^[4]
• Intent requirement: Conviction requires proving "specific intent to betray" the United States, not merely committing the acts themselves ^{[3] [1]}
• Historical application: The analyses don't address how courts have interpreted these provisions in practice or the rarity of treason prosecutions in American legal history
• Political weaponization: One analysis references contemporary political accusations of treason, suggesting the term is often misused in political discourse ^{[5] [6] [7]}

Legal scholars and defense attorneys would benefit from emphasizing the high burden of proof and specific intent requirements, as these make treason convictions extremely difficult to obtain. Prosecutors and political figures might benefit from broader interpretations that could encompass more conduct under these definitions.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains no apparent misinformation or bias. It requests specific factual information about a federal statute and is appropriately narrow in scope. The question correctly identifies the relevant statute (18 U.S.C. § 2381) and asks for the specific acts that constitute treason under that law.

However, the question's clinical focus on statutory text could inadvertently contribute to misunderstanding if readers don't appreciate the extremely high legal standards required for treason convictions or the constitutional constraints that limit how broadly these provisions can be applied ^{[4] [3] [1]}.