The heated debate surrounding the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, took center stage on The Five during a fiery exchange between co-hosts Jessica Tarlov and Jeanine Pirro. At the heart of the debate was the Trump administration’s controversial decision to deport Garcia to El Salvador, a move that the White House admitted was an “administrative error.”

While Pirro defended the administration’s actions, Tarlov passionately countered, focusing on the lack of evidence for Garcia’s gang affiliations and the broader implications of wrongful deportations.

The Context of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Deportation

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had lived in Maryland for over a decade, was deported to El Salvador in March 2025, despite being legally present in the U.S. with a work permit. Garcia had entered the U.S. illegally in 2011 but had been allowed to remain in the country under the protection of a work visa. However, his deportation was triggered after accusations surfaced that he was affiliated with the MS-13 gang, a claim that has been widely contested.

The Trump administration justified Garcia’s deportation by labeling him a dangerous gang member with ties to MS-13, which the U.S. government had recently designated as a terrorist organization. However, no formal charges were brought against Garcia, and he had never been convicted of being a member of the notorious gang. This discrepancy fueled the controversy, as the basis for Garcia’s deportation remained clouded in ambiguity, with critics pointing to the lack of solid evidence to support the claims.

Pirro’s Defense: A National Security Concern

In the heated discussion, Pirro expressed strong support for the Trump administration’s actions. “I don’t care about the constitutional crisis,” she said, defending the deportation as a necessary move for national security. Pirro argued that Garcia’s deportation was justified due to his alleged MS-13 connections and the risk he posed to American citizens.

“Biden! And that’s the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. Start caring about American citizens!” Pirro raged, blaming President Biden’s immigration policies for the rise in illegal immigration and the perceived threat posed by individuals like Garcia. She maintained that Garcia’s deportation was essential to keeping Americans safe, even if it meant ignoring the legal complexities of his case.

Pirro’s argument focused on the broader issue of illegal immigration and the perceived failure of Democrats to protect American citizens. She framed Garcia’s deportation as part of the larger effort to combat illegal immigration and protect the U.S. from criminals, particularly those involved in gangs like MS-13. For Pirro, the political ramifications of supporting Garcia’s deportation were less important than ensuring the safety of American citizens.

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

Tarlov, the more liberal voice on The Five, was quick to challenge Pirro’s assertions. She rejected the idea that Garcia was a member of MS-13, pointing out that there was no solid evidence to support the claim. “First and foremost, Abrego Garcia, there is no proof that he was an MS-13 member,” Tarlov said, firmly stating that the accusation had been debunked by multiple sources. She criticized the Trump administration for relying on weak and unreliable testimony to justify Garcia’s deportation.

Tarlov went on to explain that the allegations against Garcia were based on “double hearsay testimony,” a legal standard that she argued was insufficient to justify such a drastic measure as deportation. “It was based on double hearsay testimony and also a detective who was indicted merely weeks later for providing confidential information to a sex worker,” she explained, detailing the dubious nature of the evidence used to accuse Garcia of being involved in MS-13.

In Tarlov’s view, Garcia’s deportation was an error, and the administration had failed to uphold the basic principles of due process. “You deserve due process,” Tarlov said, referring to the legal rights of individuals facing deportation. She pointed out that under the Alien Enemies Act, which was used to facilitate Garcia’s deportation, individuals are entitled to challenge their deportation in court. Tarlov emphasized that Garcia had been denied this right, undermining the fairness of his treatment.

Moreover, Tarlov argued that deporting Garcia to a dangerous prison in El Salvador, particularly without sufficient legal proceedings, was deeply problematic. “It is not the same thing to deport someone to their home country as to send them to a prison,” she said, highlighting the risk to Garcia’s safety if he were sent back to El Salvador, where he could face violent repercussions. Tarlov’s argument focused on the violation of Garcia’s rights and the lack of a fair process in his deportation.

The Constitutional Crisis: Due Process and International Law

Tarlov’s concerns also extended to the broader implications of Garcia’s deportation on U.S. immigration law. She warned that the failure to provide due process could lead to a “full-blown constitutional crisis.” Tarlov’s comments echoed those of Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who expressed similar concerns about the legality and fairness of Garcia’s deportation. Van Hollen had previously announced his plans to travel to El Salvador to ensure Garcia’s safety and to address the issue of wrongful deportations.

Tarlov’s emphasis on Garcia’s legal rights was not just about one individual’s case, but about protecting the rights of all individuals facing deportation. “The reason that 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,” Tarlov warned, underscoring the potential long-term consequences of allowing due process to be disregarded in deportation cases.

The lack of transparency in Garcia’s case, along with the administration’s reluctance to provide a clear justification for his deportation, contributed to the growing concerns about the abuse of power. Tarlov and others have argued that the government should not have the authority to deport individuals without providing them with an opportunity to defend themselves in court, particularly when their deportation could result in serious harm.

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 Republicans like Jeanine 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 conflict reflects the broader 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.