Are US treaty cruisers really cruisers?

Were US treaty cruisers really cruisers if they depended on escorts?

Yes. They fulfilled an American version of the cruiser role as high-speed fleet reconnaissance and fighting assets, even though they were less suited to the independent, all-purpose employment expected of many British cruisers.

The criticism is that a cruiser needing destroyer protection is not an independent cruiser at all. American designs should be judged against their intended fleet role: they relied on speed, maneuver, and the protection of the wider formation rather than equipment for persistent solo operations. British cruisers carried hydrophones mainly as torpedo warnings, reflecting the losses of HMS Aboukir and HMS Hogue, whereas American assumptions about speed, subdivision, and screening shaped a different set of compromises. Those assumptions became more questionable against weapons such as the Japanese Long Lance, but they still explain why the ships were built as they were. Their specialization reflected the United States' geostrategic situation and battle-fleet doctrine rather than a failure to understand the cruiser category.