Remember China is not the ally of the US.
You don’t ship fentanyl and other synthetic drugs to a country you are friends with.
China actively works to disrupt the US. They only go as far as they currently think they can get away with.
For a given meaning of adversary it is, for others it isn't, clearly the line in the sand at least for the US is when they are at war, arguably when a trade ban happens if we want to be a bit more relaxed with definitions. If you do disagree and believe the line in the sand encompasses china the real worry should not be a "measly" 3 billion from random VCs but the 1 trillion dollars of the US national debt china holds.
> You don’t ship fentanyl and other synthetic drugs to a country you are friends with.
You ship them to where people are buying them, unless you're saying it's a government operation and not a case of lax export regulations, which I'd be very surprised if it was the case, at least directly.
For one, because treason refers to an enemy, not an adversary, and China is not legally an enemy of the US (at war). You can't just assert that China is an enemy in court without some legal basis.
Note that not even the Rosenbergs were charged with treason for sharing US nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union. That's how high the bar for treason is.
They were used later against US forces but wasn't something the US necessarily expected.
There's an argument for it, which is sufficient to leave alone unless you want to argue the merits (not quibble about a specific definition).
Case in point if slackers were found guilty in China (or any country of Asia) destroying millions of lives using prescription drugs he would have been shamed, his company would have been desolved and executed immediately instead of wasting years of time in court debating on the technicality of the issue in the name of giving proper justice.
The raft of trade deals, tourism, cultural exchange, investment and massive trade relationship would say otherwise.