Mark Ibrahim’s Case Background

Mark Ibrahim, an off-duty federal law enforcement officer, attended the political protest outside of the Capitol on January 6. Mr. Ibrahim never went into the Capitol Building, he was only on the Grounds, the few outdoor blocks surrounding the building. Mr. Ibrahim did not engage in any violence or disorder, instead defending officers from escalating anger of protestors. In videos from that day, he laments the breakdown of what started as a peaceful protest.

Mark Ibrahim is the only known J6 defendant charged with trespassing outside of the Capitol Building, on Capitol Grounds, without ever even making it to the front steps of the building. Mr. Ibrahim’s attorney has argued that he was selectively chosen for prosecution due to his federal employment and his political beliefs. (Scroll to the bottom to read motions.)

Mr. Ibrahim was charged with a felony offense for just possessing his department-issued firearm on the Grounds of the Capitol. The department-issued firearm was accompanied by his badge and credentials, and remained holstered the entire time. The Government admitted on the record that Mr. Ibrahim “was an officer of the United States” on January 6, 2021. He was both authorized and encouraged by his department to carry a firearm while off-duty, see DEA Agents Manual § 6122.11(B) (stating that DEA agents are “required to be available for duty with little or no advance notice” and “must have ready access to their firearm in the event that they are recalled to duty.”) And, he was authorized by law to carry firearms — see 21 U.S.C. § 878, which states that DEA federal law enforcement officers are authorized to carry firearms, and D.C. Code § 22–4505, which permits federal police officers who are otherwise authorized to carry firearms to do so in the District of Columbia.

As an officer of the United States, Mr. Ibrahim should also be exempt from the enforcement of the law that prohibits the possession of firearms on Capitol Grounds, see exemption to 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1). But the judge determined that this exemption for law enforcement officers does not apply to him because Mr. Ibrahim was off-duty at the time he was present with his firearm. The judge also ruled that possession of a firearm on Capitol Grounds is a strict-liability felony offense. This ruling is inconsistent with the defense team’s reading of that exemption and understanding of the law. This ruling has the effect of depriving this law enforcement officer of qualified immunity, as well as any other off-duty officer finding himself on Capitol Grounds while otherwise following department protocols. An interlocutory appeal was filed on March 16, 2023, as a result.

“I was there with my brother. He is an FBI special agent. And no adverse action was taken against him, as it shouldn’t. As it shouldn’t have happened to me. And, you know, they got it wrong. Me and my brother both served in the Army. I followed him into federal law enforcement. My sister is a Navy veteran. My mom was in the Pentagon on 9/11. And I’m the son of two immigrants who left oppressive regimes. And, you know, my mom instilled in me a debt that we owe this country for the liberties and freedoms, they are not free. So, just the saddest part about this is I can’t serve my country anymore.”

-Mr. Ibrahim to Fox News