We (the US) put a high bar on it because the Crown was using it as a way to attack political enemies and we didn’t want to follow suit. It is such a high bar in this country that it is effectively dead law, as nobody has been tried for it since soon after WWII, and very very few people have been convicted, and of those several had their convictions overturned.
The current administration does, however, throw the term around against its political enemies quite a bit, as have people in general pretty much throughout history.
The Constitution put a pretty high bar on a lot of things. They put an enormous thumb on the scale of the status quo, which benefits some and harms a lot of others. Especially since the proponents of the status quo get to now put their hands on their hearts and say "gosh, I'd like to fix that injustice, but the holy Constitution means I just can't."
If having a fig leaf of an excuse really better? Its not like the acts or methods being now clearly observed now are anything new. Its just they aren't disguised
It's falling that people support this without even pretending that it's about something other than their hatred for you.
In the past we had to pretend to be civil, and that illusion let us get back to work between elections. The utter disregard for the law forces us to grapple with the fact that they have so little respect for us that they will not care if there isn't another election.
You don't think starting a war apparently to distract the media, then lying about peace talks solely to drain money from the markets is treasonous?
How about when combined with all the tariffs, which seem designed to be market levers and/or just vindictive acts?
Pushing businesses to the edge, plunging people into poverty, so your cronies and you can drain money from the stock market?
Or taking bribes using crypto? Or ...
They all seem treasonous - actively harming your own country to enrich yourself.
Even if you don't find them treasonous, you have to admit they're in contravention to the emoluments clause; so Congress should still impeach the evil bastard.
And we haven't even started on his crimes beyond the simple financial ones from the last year!
Treason means something very specific in the US, intentionally. It’s one of only a couple of criminal acts defined in the constitution.
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
So no. None of those things is treason. This administration throws the word around loosely, like many authoritarian regimes, but the founders had direct experience with a dictator who used treason charges as a political weapon and tried to ensure that wouldn’t happen here.
I do feel as if threats to apply the crime of treason while are, if not treasonous, crimes themselves. Threats are a criminal act, and there is a long precedent to disallow "I wasn't really gonna do it" as a defense.
For the administration as a whole... Honestly, as disgusted as I am, I can't think of a case where a significant fraction of the country looked at a treasonous action and said "yeah, I'd vote for that again".
When his supporters turn against him he will be impeached. Until then, it's just the suicide pact called the Constitution.
The current administration does, however, throw the term around against its political enemies quite a bit, as have people in general pretty much throughout history.