I never thought the things I learned in JROTC would be relevant today. Or that my time at a military university, my service in the U.S. Navy, and my work for the Department of Homeland Security — before I even enlisted — would form the basis for understanding the political collapse we are living through. But here I am, watching the United States contort itself over the question of whether Donald Trump can be charged with treason, and realizing that the answer is, and always has been, a resounding no. Not because he isn’t guilty of betraying the country, but because the United States government is structured in such a way that makes treason, in its truest legal sense, almost impossible to charge — especially in a nation where colonial power is the foundation of governance.
The thing about working for the government is that it shapes how you see the world — whether you want it to or not. But long before I joined DHS or served in the Navy, I was already being trained to understand how government functions. In JROTC, we learned far more than just discipline and drill formations. We studied the Constitution — not just as a historical document, but as a living framework that dictated how government functioned and how power was supposed to be distributed. We learned about the rules of war, about the Geneva Conventions, about what differentiates a lawful order from an unlawful one. We were taught that military service, and by extension, all government service, existed to protect the people — not the politicians, not the parties, but the people.
Then I attended a military university, where these lessons became more formalized. I studied the military chain of command in depth, understanding how civilian leadership and military operations were supposed to work in tandem. That knowledge felt crucial when I joined the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after leaving school. It was a post-9/11 world, and I was working inside the very system that dictated how America perceived threats — both real and imagined.
Then I enlisted in the United States Navy, where everything I had learned about government service, constitutional responsibility, and national defense became real. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath didn’t expire when I left the military. But what I had already started to realize during my time at DHS became painfully clear in uniform: The rules we were taught to uphold — the ones about democracy, duty, and the rule of law — were not equally applied.
And that’s exactly why treason, despite its weighty name, is a charge that will never be used against someone like Trump. The system wasn’t built to hold its own accountable. It was built to punish those who challenge its authority.
Understanding Treason in the American Context
Treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 3 states:
“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
This definition is critical because it is deliberately narrow. The Founding Fathers — who themselves were technically traitors to the British Crown — did not want treason to be an easily wielded weapon. Unlike in England, where the mere act of speaking against the king could be considered treasonous, the U.S. required two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court.
But there’s a bigger issue: treason, as defined by the Constitution, requires an enemy. And that’s where the system protects people like Trump.
Why Is It So Hard to Charge Trump With Treason?
Even if you believe Trump’s actions fit the spirit of treason, legally, it’s a different story. Here’s why:
1. The U.S. Must Be at War for “Enemies” to Exist
Treason requires that someone “adheres to their enemies.” But legally, the U.S. has to be at war for an entity to be considered an “enemy.”
Russia, for example, is not officially an enemy — even though they are a geopolitical adversary. So Trump siding with Putin wouldn’t meet the legal definition of treason.
The same applies to China, Iran, and even Hamas. The U.S. may sanction or oppose them, but without an official war declaration, they are not legally considered “enemies.”
2. There Must Be an Overt Act — And Two Witnesses to It
Trump could publicly praise Putin, give classified information to foreign leaders, weaken NATO, or cripple the U.S. government’s ability to function, but unless there is a provable, overt act of giving aid and comfort to an enemy during wartime, it doesn’t meet the legal bar for treason.
Even if an overt act does exist, two people must witness the same event and testify in court.
3. Congress Won’t Act Because It’s a Unified Government
In a unified government where the president’s party controls both the House and Senate, there is no political will to pursue treason charges.
Even if Democrats or a handful of Republicans call Trump’s actions treasonous, the GOP-led Congress has no incentive to act — they control the committees, the votes, and the impeachment process.
4. Impeachment and the 14th Amendment Are Different from Treason
Some have suggested using the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office for “engaging in insurrection.”
However, insurrection is not the same as treason. The 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause requires a lower burden of proof, but it still relies on political will to enforce it.
Congress could impeach Trump for abuse of power or dereliction of duty, but impeachment is not a criminal charge — it’s a political process controlled by the majority party (again, the GOP).
The Colonial Condition and Selective Justice
Here’s the real issue: The United States does not prosecute treason equally. It never has.
If treason were truly applied as intended, figures like Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy — who literally waged war against the U.S. government — would have been executed. Instead, Davis was released after two years, and Confederate leaders were reintegrated into American political life.
Meanwhile, Black, Indigenous, and Puerto Rican revolutionaries — who never waged war against the U.S., but simply resisted colonial rule — were charged as traitors, assassinated, or imprisoned.
Fred Hampton was executed in his sleep for resisting white supremacy.
Pedro Albizu Campos was tortured and poisoned in prison for fighting for Puerto Rican independence.
Leonard Peltier has spent decades in prison for defending Indigenous sovereignty.
The colonial condition of justice means that treason charges are not about betraying the Constitution — they are about who holds power.
Trump Was Never a Threat to Colonial Power
Trump will never be charged with treason because, at the end of the day, he was never an enemy of the colonial state. He reinforced it. He upheld white supremacy. He used the government to benefit the elite. Even when he incited an insurrection, it was not an attempt to dismantle American empire — it was an attempt to strengthen his own grip on power within it.
Had Trump been a radical leader, had he fought to dismantle white supremacy, redistribute wealth, or decolonize governance, he would have been swiftly branded a traitor.
History proves it.
Martin Luther King Jr. was targeted as a national threat not for violence, but for organizing Black economic and political power.
Puerto Rican independence leaders were branded as traitors for demanding self-determination.
Anti-colonial leaders worldwide — from Patrice Lumumba to Salvador Allende — were assassinated or overthrown with U.S. backing.
The state has always known how to wield the charge of treason against those who threaten its foundation. But it will never use it against one of its own.
The Colonial Condition of Justice
Treason, as a legal charge, is a performance. A relic that exists more in theory than in practice. The fact that we are even debating whether Trump can be charged with treason is proof of how little Americans understand the function of power in this country. The colonial condition ensures that the law does not serve justice — it serves the preservation of the ruling class.
Trump will not be charged with treason because the system was built to protect people like him. It was built to punish the powerless, not the powerful.
So the real question is not whether Trump committed treason. The real question is:
Why do we keep expecting a colonial government to hold itself accountable?
The Colonial Condition is a publication dedicated to critically interrogating colonial legacies, decolonial resistance, and historical reckonings. We challenge dominant narratives and amplify marginalized perspectives. Join the conversation — read, question, and disrupt.