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.
Which US Presidents have been accused of treason in history?
Executive Summary
No United States President has ever been formally charged with or convicted of treason under the Constitution; historical claims fall into two categories: isolated formal accusations that did not lead to prosecution, and recurring rhetorical or political accusations in public discourse. The most concrete historical instance often cited is an 1861 claim involving Franklin Pierce that was investigated and largely dismissed, while modern accusations are primarily partisan rhetoric or nonbinding resolutions rather than criminal indictments [1] [2] [3].
1. The 1861 Pierce episode that keeps getting retold
In 1861 Secretary of State William Seward and other critics raised allegations about former President Franklin Pierce’s loyalties amid the secession crisis; those allegations suggested sympathies with Southern conspiracies and possible ties to secret pro-Confederate groups. Contemporary accounts and later summaries report that congressional inquiries and the broader political reaction treated the charges as unfounded or politically motivated, with no criminal treason prosecution pursued against Pierce. Modern retellings note persistent public suspicion but emphasize that the House and Senate concluded the episode was a hoax rather than a legal case of treason, making Pierce an example of a high-profile allegation that never became a formal treason charge [1].
2. Vice President Aaron Burr’s treason trial is often mistaken for a presidential case
Aaron Burr, who served as Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, was tried in 1807 for allegedly conspiring to create an independent territory in the western U.S.; he was indicted for treason but acquitted after Chief Justice Marshall’s narrow interpretation of the constitutional treason standard. Some summaries and popular retellings conflate Burr’s notoriety with presidential misconduct, but no U.S. President has a comparable criminal treason trial. Legal histories emphasize how rare treason prosecutions are in American law and how high the constitutional bar is for conviction, which helps explain why presidents have not faced formal treason charges even amid sharp political controversy [4] [2].
3. Rhetoric versus legal accusation: modern partisan claims
In recent decades, prominent politicians and commentators have repeatedly used the term “treason” rhetorically against sitting or former presidents—accusations directed at figures across the political spectrum—but these are political attacks rather than indictments under the criminal treason statute. Fact-checking and legal analyses note repeated examples: public figures accusing presidents of treason during Vietnam-era disputes, Cold War controversies, and post-2016 politics; these accusations have not produced criminal charges because treason requires acts giving “aid and comfort” to enemies and is narrowly construed. The distinction between impeachable offenses, criminal statutes, and hyperbolic political rhetoric explains why such claims proliferate without legal follow-through [3] [5].
4. Recent congressional measures and the Biden allegation: accusation without prosecution
A recent House resolution accused President Joe Biden of actions rising to treason related to the Afghanistan withdrawal; the resolution and related statements represent formal political expression but not criminal indictment. Congressional resolutions and impeachment inquiries operate within political remedies; they do not equate to criminal prosecution, which requires indictment, trial, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt under federal law. Historical patterns show Congress can censure, investigate, or impeach, but the Constitution’s treason clause and Department of Justice practice make it extraordinarily rare for anyone—let alone a president—to face formal treason charges, and past congressional actions alleging treason have typically remained political documents [6] [3].
5. The big picture: legal standards, historical rarity, and possible agendas
The U.S. constitutional definition of treason is narrow, requiring levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort, proven by overt acts and stringent evidentiary rules; this high bar, combined with political checks, explains why no president has been criminally charged with treason. Historical episodes that are sometimes labeled “treason” are either rhetorical attacks, like partisan smears across eras, or isolated accusations that legislative bodies dismissed, as with Pierce. Observers should note agendas: partisan actors use the language to delegitimize opponents, historical writers sometimes inflate contested episodes, and legal commentators stress the rarity of successful treason prosecutions [2] [3].