It isn’t Treason. It was not done for the benefit of an enemy power in a time of War and it would likely need a Declared war at that. It is perhaps Libel even of a public person, and slander, and perhaps criminal conspiracy but it is not Treason.
Treason is not limited to declared (or undeclared) wartime.
We wewren't "at war" with the USSR when they were fried for giving them NUKE info and....the Rosenbergs weren't paid over a million dollars, either!
There does not have to be an ongoing war, declared or not, to be charged with treason.
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.
("Attainder of treason" referred to a practice in Europe at the time of impoverishing, ostracizing and banishing a traitor's family and descendants.)
Aaron Burr — third vice president of the United States, 1801-05, planned a Mexican "empire," 1807.
Sidelined politically and embittered after he killed archrival Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804, Burr conspired with Gen. James Wilkinson to invade Mexico and establish an empire.
Wilkinson turned him in, and Burr was tried for treason in 1807, based on an accusation that his empire was to include parts of the western United States. Chief Justice John Marshall, who acquitted Burr, said that to prove treason, "war must actually be levied against the United States ... conspiracy (to levy war) is not treason."