Jessica Tarlov vs. Jeanine Pirro: The Debate Over Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Deportation

A fiery debate over immigration policy erupted on The Five when co-hosts Jessica Tarlov and Jeanine Pirro clashed over the controversial deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, to El Salvador. The explosive exchange not only highlighted the ideological divide between the two women but also reignited a national conversation about the balance between national security and individual rights, the role of due process, and the power of the U.S. government in immigration enforcement.

The Context of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Deportation

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, had lived in Maryland for over a decade. He entered the U.S. illegally in 2011 and was later granted protection under a work visa. However, Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador in March 2025 became a flashpoint after accusations surfaced that he was affiliated with the notorious MS-13 gang. The Trump administration justified Garcia’s deportation by labeling him a dangerous gang member, pointing to his alleged ties to MS-13 and using his tattoos—specifically a marijuana leaf, a cross, and a smiley face—as evidence of his gang affiliation.

The controversy surrounding Garcia’s deportation grew when critics questioned the validity of the claims. No formal charges were brought against Garcia, and the evidence used to justify his deportation was widely contested. His attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, denied the allegations, asserting that Garcia had never lived in New York—where the gang ties were purportedly traced—and that the tattoos didn’t definitively link him to MS-13. The administration’s reliance on weak evidence left many wondering if the deportation was justified.

Despite the controversy, Garcia was deported in March 2025, violating a court order issued by Judge Paula Xinis, who explicitly prohibited his deportation. Although the Supreme Court partially upheld the ruling, the Justice Department took a passive stance, only affirming the release if Garcia returned to a U.S. port of entry. Meanwhile, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, after a meeting with President Trump, declared he would not allow Garcia to return to the U.S., citing national security concerns.

Pirro’s Defense: A National Security Concern

Jeanine Pirro, a staunch supporter of Trump’s immigration policies, defended the administration’s actions, asserting that Garcia’s deportation was a necessary move for national security. Pirro dismissed concerns over due process, arguing that the Trump administration’s actions were justified in protecting American citizens from dangerous criminals. “I don’t care about the constitutional crisis,” she declared, pointing to the broader issues of illegal immigration and the potential threat posed by individuals linked to gangs like MS-13.

“It’s about keeping Americans safe,” Pirro continued, placing blame on President Biden’s immigration policies for the rise in illegal immigration. She argued that the system’s failure to protect citizens, coupled with weak policies on illegal immigration, made deportations like Garcia’s essential. For Pirro, national security and the safety of American citizens trumped concerns about the legal intricacies of individual deportation cases.

Tarlov’s Counter-Argument: Due Process and the Law

Jessica Tarlov, the more liberal voice on The Five, passionately countered Pirro’s arguments, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence linking Garcia to MS-13. Tarlov was adamant that Garcia’s deportation was unjust, pointing out that the evidence presented by the Trump administration was circumstantial at best. “There is no proof that he was an MS-13 member,” Tarlov stated firmly, criticizing the use of what she called “double hearsay testimony” in the case.

She further criticized the legal framework used to justify the deportation, explaining that Garcia was denied due process. According to Tarlov, under the Alien Enemies Act, individuals have the right to challenge their deportation in court. In Garcia’s case, she argued, that right was violated. Tarlov emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional rights and protecting individuals facing deportation, especially when the evidence against them is weak and unsubstantiated.

One of Tarlov’s main concerns was the risk to Garcia’s safety. She pointed out that El Salvador’s prisons, particularly the notorious CECOT mega-prison, are known for their violent conditions. “It’s not the same thing to deport someone to their home country as to send them to a prison,” Tarlov said, emphasizing the danger Garcia would face if deported to a facility like CECOT. Tarlov’s argument centered on the inhumane treatment Garcia might experience and the disregard for his legal rights.

The Constitutional Crisis: Due Process and International Law

Tarlov also warned of the broader implications Garcia’s deportation could have on U.S. immigration law. She expressed concern that the failure to provide Garcia with due process could lead to a constitutional crisis, particularly in cases involving individuals facing deportation to potentially dangerous conditions. “The reason Democrats are talking about the fact that anyone could quote-unquote be disappeared is that you can see a full-blown constitutional crisis playing out in front of our eyes,” she said, highlighting the potential long-term consequences of ignoring due process in deportation cases.

This sentiment echoed the concerns of Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador in April 2025 to meet with Garcia and push for his return. Van Hollen has argued that Garcia’s deportation was unfair and violated the rights of the individual, urging the U.S. government to ensure his safety and comply with international standards for due process in immigration cases.

The Broader Debate: National Security vs. Individual Rights

The debate over Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation is emblematic of the larger ideological divide in the U.S. over immigration and national security. For conservatives like Pirro, the priority is ensuring the safety of American citizens by deporting individuals who may pose a threat, even if it means cutting corners on due process. For liberals like Tarlov, the focus is on upholding the legal rights of individuals, regardless of their immigration status, and ensuring that the government acts fairly and transparently in deportation cases.

This divide reflects the ongoing tensions within U.S. immigration policy, where national security concerns are often pitted against the legal protections guaranteed to individuals under the U.S. Constitution. The Trump administration’s hardline stance on immigration has fueled these tensions, as conservatives argue that strict immigration policies are necessary to protect Americans from criminal elements, while liberals contend that such policies undermine fundamental rights and liberties.

Conclusion: The Fight for Fairness in Immigration Policy

The exchange between Jessica Tarlov and Jeanine Pirro underscores the deep divisions in the U.S. over immigration policy and the treatment of undocumented immigrants. While the Trump administration remains steadfast in its approach to deportation, emphasizing the need to protect American citizens from crime, Tarlov and other critics argue that the government must adhere to legal principles and respect the rights of individuals, regardless of their immigration status.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case is just one example of the complex legal and moral issues surrounding immigration. The debate over his deportation highlights the importance of due process and the potential dangers of circumventing legal protections in the name of national security. As the U.S. continues to grapple with these issues, the question of how to balance security with fairness will remain a central theme in the national conversation about immigration and justice.

The outcome of Garcia’s case will likely have far-reaching implications, not only for immigration policy but also for the broader question of how the U.S. government upholds its commitment to justice and human rights in an increasingly polarized political environment.