The Five’s Fiery Debate on Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Deportation: Due Process vs. National Security

A recent episode of Fox News’ The Five, aired in April 2025, turned explosive as co-hosts Jessica Tarlov and Jeanine Pirro clashed over the controversial deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national living in Maryland. The Trump administration’s decision to deport Garcia to El Salvador—despite admitting it was an “administrative error”—has sparked widespread debate, highlighting the tension between national security and individual rights. The fiery exchange on The Five encapsulated this divide, with Pirro defending the deportation as a necessary security measure and Tarlov condemning it as a violation of due process, raising broader questions about U.S. immigration policy.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, had resided in Maryland for over a decade after entering the U.S. illegally in 2011 at age 16, fleeing gang threats in El Salvador. By 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal status, acknowledging the danger he faced from the Barrio 18 gang if returned to El Salvador. This legal protection allowed Garcia to remain in the U.S. with a work permit, where he built a life with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, and their three children, including a son with autism. However, on March 15, 2025, the Trump administration deported Garcia to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison, alongside over 260 other migrants, under an agreement with the Salvadoran government to detain alleged gang members.

The administration justified Garcia’s deportation by alleging ties to the MS-13 gang, recently designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Despite this claim, Garcia has no criminal record in either the U.S. or El Salvador, and the evidence against him is thin. Court documents reveal the accusation stemmed from a 2019 arrest in Maryland, where police cited his clothing—a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with money rolls covering the “see, hear, speak no evil” motif—as indicative of MS-13 affiliation, alongside testimony from a confidential informant. However, the officer who provided this testimony was later suspended for misconduct, casting doubt on the reliability of the evidence. Federal Judge Paula Xinis and the U.S. Supreme Court have since ruled the deportation illegal, ordering the government to “facilitate” Garcia’s return, a directive the administration has resisted.

On The Five, Jeanine Pirro, a former judge and staunch Trump supporter, passionately defended the deportation. “I don’t care about the constitutional crisis,” she declared, framing Garcia as a potential threat due to his alleged MS-13 ties. Pirro argued that national security trumps legal nuances, emphasizing the need to protect American citizens from what she sees as dangers posed by illegal immigration. “Biden! And that’s the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. Start caring about American citizens!” she exclaimed, blaming the Biden administration’s immigration policies for creating vulnerabilities. Pirro pointed to cases like the 2023 murder of Rachel Morin, a Maryland woman killed by a Salvadoran fugitive, to underscore her point, suggesting that deporting individuals like Garcia is a necessary precaution, even if evidence is inconclusive.

Pirro’s stance aligns with the Trump administration’s narrative, which has doubled down on Garcia’s deportation despite admitting the initial error. President Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele have publicly refused to facilitate Garcia’s return, with Bukele calling the idea “preposterous” during a White House meeting in April 2025. The administration has leaned on the MS-13 allegations, with Trump falsely claiming Garcia had “MS-13” tattooed on his knuckles—a claim debunked as an edited image. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has labeled Garcia a “terrorist” and cited a 2021 protective order filed by his wife, which was later dismissed, to paint him as a violent individual, despite no criminal convictions.

Jessica Tarlov, the liberal voice on the panel, countered Pirro with a fervent defense of due process. “First and foremost, Abrego Garcia, there is no proof that he was an MS-13 member,” Tarlov insisted, highlighting the lack of credible evidence. She detailed the shaky foundation of the gang allegations, noting they relied on “double hearsay testimony” from a Maryland detective who was indicted shortly after for leaking confidential information to a sex worker. “It has been debunked many times,” Tarlov added, rejecting Pirro’s claim that Garcia failed to rebut the gang accusation, which Pirro insisted was “reliable, verifiable proof” under immigration law.

Tarlov emphasized the legal protections Garcia was entitled to, arguing that under the Alien Enemies Act—invoked by Trump to justify mass deportations—individuals deserve due process. “You deserve due process,” she stated, pointing out that Garcia was denied the opportunity to challenge his deportation in court. She also highlighted the inhumane conditions of his detention, noting that deportation to a mega-prison like CECOT, known for human rights abuses, is not equivalent to simply returning someone to their home country. “It is not the same thing to deport someone to their home country as to send them to a prison,” Tarlov argued, stressing the risk to Garcia’s safety given his prior threats from Barrio 18.

The broader implications of Garcia’s case alarmed Tarlov, who warned of a “full-blown constitutional crisis.” She echoed concerns from Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who visited Garcia in El Salvador in April 2025 and criticized the administration for defying court orders. Van Hollen’s trip underscored the gravity of the situation, with the senator stating on X that denying Garcia’s constitutional rights threatens everyone’s freedoms. Tarlov argued that the administration’s actions set a dangerous precedent, allowing the government to “disappear” individuals without accountability, a move that undermines the rule of law.

The debate on The Five reflects a deeper ideological divide in the U.S. over immigration policy. Pirro’s position mirrors conservative priorities of prioritizing national security, even at the expense of due process, a view shared by many Republicans who see strict immigration enforcement as essential to public safety. Tarlov’s stance aligns with liberal advocates who emphasize fairness, transparency, and the protection of individual rights, regardless of immigration status. This tension is evident in the administration’s payment of $6 million to El Salvador to detain deportees, a deal critics argue prioritizes political optics over justice.

Garcia’s case has far-reaching implications. The Supreme Court’s ruling, while ordering facilitation of his return, left ambiguity around enforcement, allowing the administration to exploit loopholes. Bukele’s refusal to release Garcia, coupled with Trump’s admission that he could retrieve him but won’t, has fueled accusations of deliberate defiance. Legal battles continue, with Judge Xinis demanding transparency and threatening contempt charges, while Garcia remains in a Salvadoran prison, separated from his family.

The exchange between Tarlov and Pirro underscores the stakes in this ongoing debate. As the U.S. grapples with balancing security and fairness, Garcia’s ordeal highlights the human cost of policy failures and the urgent need for a system that upholds justice without succumbing to fear-driven overreach. The outcome of this case may shape the future of immigration enforcement, testing the resilience of constitutional protections in an era of heightened polarization.