Criminal Defense Lawyers

Treason Charges Lawyers

Last Updated on: 6th December 2025, 07:46 pm

The word “treason” gets thrown around constantly in political debates. Someone leaked classified information? Treason. A politician met with foreign officials? Treason. Someone disagrees with policy? Their opponents call it treason. But here’s what almost nobody understands: actual treason charges under American law are nearly impossible to bring, and convictions are rarer still.

Treason is the only crime specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders were so concerned about the government abusing this charge that they created strict requirements that have made treason prosecutions essentially obsolete in modern America. Since 1952, there has been only one treason indictment – and that defendant was killed before trial.

This article breaks down what treason actually means under American law, why the constitutional requirements make prosecution so difficult, and what charges the government actually uses when it wants to punish betrayal. Because understanding the reality of treason law means understanding why the charge you’re worried about probably isn’t treason at all.

What the Constitution Actually Says About Treason

The Constitution’s treason clause is remarkably specific: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” That’s it. Those are the only two ways to commit treason under American law.

The first form is “levying war” against the United States. This doesn’t mean just talking about revolution or even planning one. The Supreme Court established early on that there must be an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” Conspiracy to overthrow the government is a different crime. Levying war means actual armed conflict.

The second form is “adhering to enemies” and giving them “aid and comfort.” This sounds broader, but it has a critical limitation that changes everything: there must be an actual enemy. And under constitutional interpretation, “enemy” means a nation or group that the United States is formally at war with.

The Constitution also imposes strict evidentiary requirements that apply to no other crime: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.” Two witnesses to the same act. Not different witnesses to different acts. The same act.

Why Treason Charges Almost Never Happen: The Enemy Requirement

Here’s what competitor articles about treason won’t tell you directly: the “enemy” requirement essentially makes treason prosecution impossible in modern America.

When was the last time the United States formally declared war? December 1941. Against Japan, Germany, and Italy. That’s it. Every conflict since then – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror – has been conducted without a formal declaration of war from Congress.

This matters enormously for treason law. If there’s no declared war, there’s arguably no “enemy” in the constitutional sense. Can someone commit treason by aiding Russia? China? North Korea? Al-Qaeda? ISIS? Legally, it’s unclear, because none of these are enemies the United States has formally declared war against.

This is why the government doesnt charge treason for espionage. Even when Americans have sold the nations most sensitive secrets to hostile foreign powers, prosecutors use espionage statutes – not treason. The espionage laws dont require a formal enemy or declaration of war. There more flexible, easier to prove, and carry penalties up to and including death.

Think about the most famous cases of Americans betraying there country to foreign powers. Aldrich Ames sold CIA secrets to the Soviet Union. Robert Hanssen did the same for Russia. They were convicted of espionage, not treason. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg gave nuclear secrets to the Soviets – they were executed for espionage, not treason.

The Two-Witness Requirement: A Nearly Impossible Bar

Even if prosecutors could establish that someone levied war or aided enemies, they’d face another constitutional hurdle that exists for no other crime in American law: the two-witness requirement.

The Constitution requires testimony from two witnesses to the “same overt act” of treason. Not two witnesses who saw different treasonous acts. Not circumstantial evidence that points to treason. Two people who directly witnessed the identical act of betrayal.

Think about how hard that is to prove. A spy meeting with a foreign handler in secret. Someone transmitting classified documents electronically. A person providing financial support to enemies through shell companies. How often are there two witnesses present for these kinds of acts? Almost never.

This is exactly what the Founders intended. They experienced how the British Crown used treason charges as a political weapon. They saw how vague accusations and loose evidence could destroy innocent people. So they made treason the hardest crime in America to prove, requiring direct testimony that would almost never be available.

The alternative to two witnesses is a confession in open court. But that confession has to be voluntary and uncoerced. A defendant who confesses under duress, or who confesses to one element but not another, hasn’t satisfied the constitutional requirement. This isn’t like a typical criminal confession that can be used against you – the Constitution specifically demands a public, courtroom confession to substitute for witness testimony.

The Historical Record: Why Treason Convictions Are So Rare

In over 230 years of American history, there have been fewer than 40 federal treason prosecutions. And even fewer convictions. Thats not because Americans havent betrayed there country – its because the constitutional requirements are so strict.

The last successful treason conviction that was fully upheld came in 1952 – thats over 70 years ago. Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American dual citizen, was convicted of treason for tormenting American prisoners of war in Japan during World War II. He was sentenced to death, though President Eisenhower later commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.

Before that, the WWII era saw a handful of treason convictions for Americans who broadcast Axis propaganda. Mildred Gillars (“Axis Sally”) and Iva Toguri D’Aquino (“Tokyo Rose”) were both convicted of treason for there wartime broadcasts. Notably, D’Aquino was later pardoned after it emerged that prosecution witnesses had lied.

Since 1952, theres been exactly one treason indictment. In 2006, Adam Gadahn was charged with treason for appearing in al-Qaeda propaganda videos. But Gadahn was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan in 2015 and never faced trial. So the last treason indictment never resulted in conviction – and there hasnt been another in nearly two decades.

What the Government Actually Charges Instead

When people think of “treason,” the government usualy has other charges in mind. Understanding these alternatives matters because if your facing allegations of betraying America, one of these is probly what your actualy looking at:

Espionage (18 U.S.C. § 794): This is the go-to charge for spying cases. It covers gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information with intent to harm the United States or benefit a foreign nation. Penalties can include death for the most serious violations. Unlike treason, espionage doesnt require a formal enemy – any foreign government qualifies.

Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384): This covers conspiring to overthrow the government, opposing its authority by force, or preventing execution of federal law by force. Maximum penalty is 20 years. This is what gets charged when people plot rebellion – not treason.

Rebellion or Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383): Actually inciting, engaging in, or assisting rebellion against U.S. authority. Penalty is up to 10 years and permanent disqualification from federal office. The January 6th prosecutions have explored this statue.

Providing Material Support to Terrorists (18 U.S.C. § 2339B): Providing money, weapons, training, or other material support to designated terrorist organizations. This is how “aiding the enemy” gets prosecuted in the War on Terror era – through terrorism statutes, not treason.

The strategic reality is clear: federal prosecutors have easier, more effective tools than treason. Why attempt to prove an enemy relationship and find two witnesses to the same act when espionage statutes cover the same conduct with fewer hurdles? Why risk a treason acquittal when seditious conspiracy charges have a proven track record?

Why the Founders Made Treason So Hard to Prove

The difficulty of proving treason isnt a bug – its a feature. The Founders deliberatly made this crime nearly impossible to prosecute because they feared government abuse of treason charges.

In English history, “treason” expanded to cover all sorts of conduct the Crown disliked. Imagining the kings death was treason. Counterfeiting currency was treason. Sexual relations with the queens ladies-in-waiting was treason. The definition kept expanding as monarchs found it convenient to destroy political enemies.

The Founders experienced this firsthand during the Revolution. The British Crown declared American independence treason. Had the Revolution failed, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin – all would have been executed as traitors. This gave the Framers personal understanding of how treason charges could be weaponized.

So when they wrote the Constitution, they did something unprecidented: they defined treason directly in the document, limiting it to just two specific acts. They added the two-witness requirement. They restricted Congresss power to change the definition. Every protection was designed to prevent future governments from using “treason” as a political weapon the way the Crown had.

The result is a crime that exists mostly in theory. The constitutional protections work so well that actual treason prosecutions have become extraordinaraly rare. Whether this is good policy – whether we should have an effective treason law – is debatable. But its the system the Founders created, and courts have consistently honored there intent.

The Elements Required for a Treason Conviction

If someone actualy were prosecuted for treason, heres what the government would have to prove:

For “levying war”: An actual assemblage of armed people with the purpose of using force against the United States. Not a conspiracy. Not plans. Not recruitment. An actual gathering with treasonable intent ready to act. This is why the Whiskey Rebellion and Aaron Burr cases established that talking about revolution isnt enough.

For “adhering to enemies”: Intent to betray the United States to an actual enemy (requiring a state of war), plus an overt act of providing aid or comfort to that enemy. Sympathy with the enemy isnt enough. There has to be action, and there has to be intent.

And in both cases: Either testimony from two witnesses who observed the same overt act of treason, or a confession made voluntarily in open court. This two-witness requirement is unique in American law and was specificly designed to prevent false accusations.

The Penalties for Treason

The federal treason statue, 18 U.S.C. § 2381, provides severe penalties:

Death is possible – treason is a capital offense. However, no one has ever been executed for federal treason in American history. Even during the Civil War, Confederate leaders werent executed for treason.

Alternatively, imprisonment of not less than five years. Theres a minimum sentence built into the statue – if convicted, your doing at least five years.

A fine of at least $10,000. This is a statutory minimum thats remained unchanged for decades.

And permanent disqualification from holding any federal office. A treason conviction ends any possibility of public service forever.

Three Things People Get Wrong About Treason

Wrong #1: Criticizing the government is treason. No, its not. The First Amendment protects political speech, no matter how harsh. You can call the President a tyrant, advocate for policy changes, even argue that the government should be replaced – all protected speech. Treason requires actual armed conflict or actually aiding enemies during wartime.

Wrong #2: Leaking classified information is treason. Also no. Unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a crime – potentially espionage – but its not treason. Reality Winner, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden – all faced or could face various charges, but treason isnt among them.

Wrong #3: Working with foreign governments is treason. Still no. Unless were at war with that government and your actions constitute aid and comfort, its not treason. It might be violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or Logan Act violations, or campaign finance crimes, or espionage – but calling it treason is almost always wrong.

Never assume that what people call “treason” is actually the crime of treason.

What To Do If You’re Accused

If your actualy facing allegations of betraying the United States – wheather called treason or something else – heres the path forward:

First, understand what your actualy being accused of. The charge almost certainly isnt treason. Its espionage, seditious conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, or some other statute. Each has different elements and different defenses.

Second, stop talking immediatly. Any statement you make becomes evidence. This is especialy critical for national security cases where the government has extensive surveillance capabilities.

Third, get a lawyer with specific experience in national security cases. These are specialized prosecutions with classified evidence, FISA warrants, and procedures most defense attorneys have never encountered. You need someone whose handled these cases.

This is not a situation where you can represent yourself.

Treason is Americas most serious crime – the only one serious enough to be defined in the Constitution itself. But that same Constitution makes treason nearly impossible to prove. The Founders feared governments using treason accusations as political weapons, so they built in requirements that have made actual prosecutions extraordinarily rare. If your worried about treason charges, your probly actualy worried about something else entirely. And whatever that something else is, it deserves a serious defense.

The Reality for People Worried About “Treason”

If your reading this article because someone accused you of treason – whether formally or in the court of public opinion – heres the practical reality you need to understand.

First, your almost certainly not facing actual treason charges. Even if you did something that sounds like betraying the country, prosecutors will use other statutes. Treason is too hard to prove, and federal prosecutors are practical. They want convictions, and treason doesnt give them the best path.

Second, the crimes you might actualy face – espionage, seditious conspiracy, material support for terrorism, computer crimes, unauthorized disclosure – are serious in there own right. Some carry penalties as severe as treason, including potential death sentences for espionage. Dont let the absence of the “treason” label fool you into thinking your situation isnt serious.

Third, national security prosecutions are uniquely complex. Evidence might be classified. Surveillance might have been conducted under FISA warrants. Discovery issues arise that dont exist in ordinary criminal cases. The procedures are different, the stakes are high, and the government brings overwhelming resources to these prosecutions.

Fourth, time matters. If your under investigation for any national security offense, getting counsel early can change everything. Your lawyer can advise on what communications to avoid, prepare you for potential FBI interviews, and sometimes intervene before charges are filed. Once your indicted, options narrow considerably.

Understanding the Political Use of “Treason”

Beyond the courtroom, “treason” has become a political term thrown around with abandon. Opponents accuse each other of treason constantly. Social media amplifies every accusation. The word has become detached from its legal meaning.

This rhetorical inflation actually serves important purposes, though not legal ones. Calling something “treason” signals the speakers moral outrage. It frames political disagreement as betrayal. It delegitimizes opponents. These are political tactics, not legal arguments.

But this rhetorical use can have real consequences. If enough people believe someone has committed “treason,” it creates pressure on prosecutors, damages reputations, and affects how juries might view defendants. The gap between what treason actualy means legally and what people think it means creates confusion that can hurt defendants even when they’ve committed no actual crime.

The best defense against rhetorical treason accusations is factual clarity. Understanding what treason actualy requires – formal enemies, levying war, aid and comfort, two witnesses – provides the foundation for pushing back against loose accusations. Most of what gets called “treason” in political debates doesn’t come close to the constitutional definition.

If your facing the political accusation without legal charges, the strategy is different than defending against prosecution. Reputation management, media response, legal letters demanding correction – these become the tools. But understanding the underlying law remains essential because public misconceptions about treason can drive narratives that damage lives even without criminal charges.

The Founders limited treason to protect against political prosecution. Ironicly, the word itself has become a political weapon anyway – just not in courtrooms. Understanding both realities is essential for anyone caught in the crosshairs of accusations they dont fully understand.

Whether your concern is criminal prosecution or public accusation, the answer starts with legal counsel. A national security attorney can evaluate what charges might actualy apply, what evidence the government might have, and how to position yourself for the best possible outcome. They can also advise on responding to public accusations in ways that dont create additional legal exposure.

Treason is Americas original crime against the state – and its most carefully defined one. That careful definition makes prosecution nearly impossible, but it doesnt make accusations less damaging. The gap between legal reality and public perception is wide, and navigating it requires both legal knowledge and strategic thinking. If your worried about treason, start by understanding what treason actualy is – and isnt. The answer will probly surprise you.