What Does the Constitution Say About Treason?

Alejandro Mayorkas has our borders in chaos. Retired General Mark Milley has admitted backchanneling to China. Are their actions just bad leadership—or something far worse?

Alejandro Mayorkas has our borders in chaos. Retired General Mark Milley has admitted backchanneling to China. Are their actions just bad leadership—or something far worse? Shall we dig into this a bit?

The Constitution of the United States doesn’t leave much room for interpretation when it comes to treason. Here is Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So in just two sentences it is crystal clear: treason means “levying war” against the country or “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”  The Founders were so precise because they’d just fought off tyranny, and they weren’t about to create a government that could casually slap the label of “traitor” on political enemies.  So, where does that leave us with today’s officials whose actions seem downright hostile to American sovereignty and security?

The Constitution’s definition of treason is short sweet and very much too the point. The Founders feared misuse of the term—just look at how European kings threw “treason” charges at anyone who challenged their power. By requiring an act of “levying war” or “assisting enemies”, they ensured accusations couldn’t just be political weapons.

Even so, the standard wasn’t just about guns and bullets. Providing “aid and comfort” could include more subtle forms of betrayal, like sabotaging national security or sharing classified intelligence. And what does that mean today? Let’s talk about open borders and secretive calls to rival nations.

Alejandro Mayorkas was born on November 24, 1959, in Havana, Cuba, is an American attorney and government official. After his family fled Cuba in 1960, he was raised in California. He earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Juris Doctor from Loyola Marymount University. Mayorkas served as U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California from 1998 to 2001. Under President Obama, he was Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (2009–2013) and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security (2013–2016). On February 2, 2021, he was sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security under President Biden. 

Now that we have a background on him let’s continue: Alejandro Mayorkas’s handling of border security certainly feels like a dereliction of duty, at least I my opinion.  According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, from fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2024, there have been approximately 10.8 million encounters (an all-time high for a single term of an administration) nationwide. This figure encompasses encounters at both the northern and southern borders, as well as at ports of entry across the United States.

This border chaos isn’t just a logistical nightmare; it exposes us to threats from drug cartels, human traffickers, and terrorists. At what point does ignoring these risks go from incompetence to treason?

General Mark Milley was born on June 20, 1958, in Winchester, Massachusetts and is a retired U.S. Army officer who served as the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023.

He continued in this role under President Joe Biden, providing military advice during the catastrophic events such as the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Milley retired on September 29, 2023, after over four decades of military service.

Milley’s actions during the final days of the Trump administration deserve serious scrutiny. According to “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Milley reportedly assured a Chinese general that he’d give advance notice if the U.S. planned to attack. Think about that: a top military leader promising a foreign adversary a heads-up about potential American military actions.

If that’s true—and Milley hasn’t denied it—how is this not “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”? Is it less treasonous because Milley claims he was preventing war? Newsflash: the Constitution doesn’t include a “good intentions” clause. The Founders would have been appalled by such an end-run around the chain of command. 

For further reading on the Milley controversy, here’s a concise description of it all from Reuters  “U.S. top general secretly called China over fears Trump could spark war -report”

Why do we shrug when leaders push the boundaries of loyalty to the United States? Treason trials are rare in U.S. history; the bar for conviction is sky-high. There have only been a handful of cases, like Aaron Burr’s 1807 trial for conspiring to create a breakaway republic in the Louisiana Territory. Even then, he was acquitted because prosecutors couldn’t prove direct acts of war. 

Modern treason cases are almost nonexistent. Post-WWII, American-born Axis propagandist Mildred Gillars (“Axis Sally”) was convicted of treason, but only after years of public outrage. Today, we have officials enabling lawlessness at our borders and holding secret talks with adversaries, yet they skate by on claims of “duty” or “strategy.” 

It’s time for a serious conversation about where negligence and betrayal meet. Our Constitution doesn’t allow us to call every bad decision treason, but it does give us tools to hold leaders accountable. Impeachment exists for high crimes and misdemeanors, and Congress must rediscover its spine. We can’t just let executive branch officials brush off questions about their actions or intentions. 

Demanding transparency and applying pressure is critical. We need leaders who prioritize the nation’s welfare above personal agendas or partisan games. Are our borders secure? Is our military loyal to the chain of command? These aren’t trivial questions—they strike at the heart of our national security. 

We’ve let too much slide. It’s time to wake up and hold these so-called “leaders” accountable for their actions, or in-actions, that weaken the Republic.

Just Sayin… 

Help Restore First Principles By Clicking The Like Button, Assuming, Of Course, That You Like This Post... 

And If You Have a Comment To Make, Please Do So. RFP Is Always Happy To Get A Conversation Going!