After a quick look at treason laws, they seem terribly vague though. "Aiding enemies of the state" can mean anything.
It's a lot clearer in actual times of war. So if you were providing military secrets to the Nazis or Japanese, then yeah, that's treason and very serious. I have a lot less sympathy for spies. Especially from superpowers.
That's why we have caselaw. Lots of laws have ambigious terms. Courts do a lot of trying to figure out what they mean.
That's also a big part of where different legal philosophies come from. What can we look at in determining what a law actually applies to. Did the authors consider non-war/rebellion enemies of the state? Did they do so for nations? If not, did they leave it deliberately vague because they understood that politics could develop in unforeseen ways? If so, what sort of unforeseen situations would fall within that? Are enemies of the state enemy nations, or any hostile organization? Does there have to be a state of war?
If we've convicted someone of treason for aiding a nation, with whom we are not at war, in hostile activities, that helps.
I took a quick look. Most treason convictions were due to literal rebellions or by aiding hostile countries with whom we were at war. Sometimes via propaganda, etc.
The best exception is Walter Allen, who was convicted in connection with the Blair mountain labor uprising. But the courts treated that as taking up arms against the US because it culminated in a conflict with the US army. So I don't think we have any.
Interesting anecdote: Billy, a revolutionary era slave, allegedly attempted to join the British army. He was initially convicted of treason but was pardoned by TJ and the VA legislature because, as a slave, he owed no alleigance to the state.
Cool stuff