Isn't there something about being at war that is part of the crime of "treason"?

"Failure to uphold the constitution" would likely be the best way of describing it, thus abrogating his solemn oath taken at his inauguration, which would clearly be grounds for treason. "Willfully and knowongly disobeying the laws of the USA" would also be apt.

But aside from technicalities, why would Congress act? None of these actions affect the strength of the congress - in fact, if the "immigrants" are to be part of a non-citizen military force to attack US citizens in place of the US military that may be less comfortable with the idea of firing on fellow citizens, then the Congress would welcome said actions as part of the "continuity of government" credo.

It's far beyond time for anyone to plausibly believe that the government - of ANY country, but especially of the USA and its allies - are not at war with those not in government. When a government official talks about saviing "the country", he or she means "the government" and its absolute power over the "governed", not the land, flag, or subsistence of those "governed". I hope that reporting in the future accepts this fact and reports things as they are. In this case, the report simply describes what those who consider themselves our (meaning the "governed") enemy is doing to further conquer their enemy and further their control. It's jsut like saying "Russia has moved more troops to the Ukrainian border". One shouldn't be shocked - it's just a simple fact, and it's all part of the war.

The only war. The war of the government versus the governed.