n a jaw-dropping segment of The Five, tempers flared when Judge Jeanine Pirro lost her cool, shouting, “Find someone else!” in response to a statement by co-host Jessica Tarlov that instantly escalated tensions on set.
The confrontation took a sharp turn as Pirro openly called on FOX News to remove Tarlov from the show, labeling her remarks “unacceptable” and accusing her of crossing a line on live television.
Viewers were left stunned as the clash unfolded in real time, sparking widespread speculation about behind-the-scenes fallout and possible changes to the panel.
What exactly did Tarlov say to ignite this intense reaction—and could this be the moment that reshapes the future of The Five?
Tensions Flare on The Five as Pirro and Tarlov Clash Over Controversial Deportation Case
A fiery on-air exchange between FOX News co-hosts Jeanine Pirro and Jessica Tarlov lit up The Five, as the panel tackled the high-profile deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man at the center of a growing political and legal firestorm. The Trump administration’s controversial decision to deport Garcia—later acknowledged by the White House as an “administrative mistake”—became the flashpoint for a passionate debate on due process, national security, and immigration justice.
Who Is Kilmar Abrego Garcia?
Garcia, who had been living in Maryland for over ten years, was removed from the U.S. in March 2025 despite holding a valid work permit. Although he had initially entered the country illegally in 2011, he was granted permission to stay under temporary protected status. His deportation was reportedly triggered by unverified claims linking him to the MS-13 gang—allegations that have been widely disputed and never substantiated in court.
The Trump administration cited these alleged gang ties as justification for his removal, emphasizing Garcia as a public threat. However, critics—including legal experts—have pointed out that Garcia was never arrested, charged, or convicted in connection with gang activity.
Jeanine Pirro’s Argument: “We Have to Protect Americans”
Pirro came out swinging in support of the deportation, arguing that national security takes precedence over procedural nuance. “I don’t care about the constitutional crisis,” she said on air, doubling down on her belief that Garcia’s removal was warranted. Pirro placed blame on President Biden’s immigration policies, accusing his administration of failing to control illegal immigration and jeopardizing public safety.
“This is why we’re in this situation—because Democrats don’t prioritize American lives,” Pirro exclaimed, framing the deportation as a necessary, even if imperfect, step toward restoring order and safety.
Jessica Tarlov Pushes Back: “Where’s the Proof?”
Tarlov, known for representing a progressive perspective on the panel, sharply challenged Pirro’s stance. She questioned the legitimacy of the gang allegations and emphasized the lack of reliable evidence. “There is no proof Garcia was part of MS-13,” she stated, adding that the claims were built on “double hearsay” and tied to a detective later indicted for misconduct.
She stressed that Garcia had been denied a fair hearing—a fundamental right under U.S. law. “Every person, regardless of status, deserves due process,” Tarlov said, warning that skipping these legal steps could result in a constitutional crisis.
A Dangerous Precedent?
Tarlov didn’t stop at the legal shortcomings—she highlighted the moral consequences of the case, noting that Garcia was sent to a prison in El Salvador, not merely deported to his home country. “This isn’t just deportation—it’s potentially a death sentence,” she warned, citing the known dangers facing prisoners in El Salvador, especially those accused of gang ties.
The exchange between Pirro and Tarlov captured more than a policy disagreement—it exposed a deep ideological divide over how America defines justice and security.
Constitutional Crisis in the Making?
Tarlov’s concerns echo those of lawmakers like Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who has raised alarms over what he views as unlawful deportations carried out without judicial oversight. Van Hollen even pledged to travel to El Salvador to ensure Garcia’s safety and advocate for transparency in similar cases.
Tarlov argued that the federal government, under the guise of national security, was undermining constitutional protections. “People can be disappeared without explanation—this is how constitutional crises start,” she warned.
Bigger Than One Case
While Garcia’s case is unique, it represents broader questions surrounding the U.S. immigration system. For conservatives like Pirro, it’s about removing threats and restoring order. For progressives like Tarlov, it’s about ensuring government accountability and legal fairness.
Their heated exchange is a microcosm of a national battle: security vs. civil liberties. In today’s political climate, cases like Garcia’s could set powerful precedents—either by tightening enforcement without due process or by reaffirming constitutional rights, even for the most vulnerable.
As the fallout from this case unfolds, the consequences may stretch far beyond the walls of The Five studio—touching courts, communities, and Congress.
