Back in November 2025, the Trump Administration tapped former New Mexico Congressman Steve Pearce to run the nation’s largest public land management agency—the Bureau of Land Management. The pick drew skepticism and opposition from conservation groups who point to Pearce’s track record of support for public land sell-offs during his days as a legislator. Despite the outcry, the Senate is expected to advance Pearce’s nomination in the coming days during an “en bloc” vote approving 48 other nominees.
If approved, he’ll become the first full-time BLM director that the agency has had during President Trump’s first term. Up to now, a series of acting and temporary nominees have led the agency, none of whom have received Congressional approval. That pattern mirrors Trump’s first term when the BLM never had a Senate-approved director but was led exclusively by temporary agency heads like William Perry Pendley.
Related: Nominee to Head BLM Has History of Supporting Public-Land Sell-Offs
Senators Voice Public Land Sell-Off Concerns
Pearce faced tough questions from Democratic Senators during his February 25 confirmation hearing in front of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Ultimately, the 11 Republicans on the committee voted on party lines to push his nomination forward with all eight Democrats and one Independent voting NO.
During the committee hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) quizzed Pearce about his past statements regarding public land sell-offs. “Not long ago, you said … ‘most of it [federally managed public land] we do not even need.’” Wyden said. “My question to you then is: Is there too much public land in the West now, in your view?”
In 2012, Pearce co-authored a letter in which he urged then Speaker of the House John Boehner to “dispose of unneeded land” to buy down the nation’s ballooning deficit. “The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land, or 1/3 of the entire landmass of the county,” the letter reads. “Over 90% of it is located in the Western states and most of it we do not even need.” The letter went on to suggest that “strategically transferring ownership of BLM and US Forest Service land would reduce land management costs and boost revenue through economic activity.”
During the recent hearing, Pearce said his past remarks stemmed from “sheer frustration” with the nature of public land management during his years as a New Mexico politician. But he stopped short of completely disavowing them. “You no longer agree with the statement you made years ago?” Wyden asked, during a pointed follow up. “Have you changed your mind?” To that, Pearce simply replied: “I’m not sure that I’ve changed.”
Deferring to Congress
Later in the hearing, Wyden asked Pearce if he’d use his authority as BLM Director to facilitate future public land sell-offs. To that Pearce said that the authority to sell swaths of public land rests with Congress. And if confirmed, he would carry out the laws as Congress writes them.
For many public land hunters and anglers, that latter response calls to mind Congress’ June 2025 attempt to sell off more than 3.5 million acres of BLM and US Forest Service lands. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah—who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee, where Pearce appeared for questioning—spearheaded that failed effort. It’s also worth noting that Pearce supported a 2017 attempt by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) to dispose of 3.3 million acres of BLM land across 10 western states.
What’s Next
If Pearce is confirmed, he’ll face a slew of controversies broiling at the BLM. Those include Congress’ recent use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn Resource management plans and the Trump Administration’s recision of the 2024 Public Lands Rule—which put conservation on equal footing with energy development and grazing. The agency is still reeling after losing approximately 800 full-time staffers to DOGE-led layoffs. And the Administration’s proposed budget for 2027 would cut agency staff by an additional 27 percent, or up to 2,148 full time positions, according to RE:PUBLIC.
In a policy update shared after the late February hearing, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) called Pearce’s responses to Wyden’s questions evasive and said the remarks “raise concerns about how [Pearce] would approach the continued stewardship of America’s public lands for hunters and anglers.”
Read Next: BLM Moves to Scrap Public Lands Rule
With Pearce’s nomination looking more likely by the day, BHA President and CEO Ryan Callaghan said his organization is ready to help guide him in his role as BLM Director, should he be confirmed by a full Senate vote. “This is an incredibly tough ride, managing for the many, not the few, and balancing the demands of extraction against a landscape that … produces output of critical need—clean air, water, food, and good old American freedom,” Callaghan told Field & Stream in an April 29 statement. “I’m confident that Mr. Pearce understands how valuable our BLM lands are. The BHA membership will let him know, should he forget.”
If you’d like to share your opinion about Pearce’s pending nomination with your Senator, call the capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.
THE 1871 CLUB
3 Comments
Depending if this new nominee actually wants to help America, or if he just wants to kiss Trump’s butt at every chance offered to him, this will determine if he should be the new BLM director.
We do not need another butt-kisser, in our struggleing democracy, running any agency in our government.
It isn’t clear Wyden has changed his mind on his frustrations with BLM; he may be changing his mind regarding policies to reduce those frustrations.
A drilldown on the list of frustrations include having so much land tied up with rules written in Washington, DC. One of Trump’s initiatives is to move a lot of the BLM offices to the states where the land resides. So the question is, how does that policy impact rule making processes, planning, etc. It would have made a little more sense to hear Wyden’s views on the specific frustrations BLM provokes among all stakeholders (BLM has a “multiple-use mandate”), and what kinds of solutions Wyden is interested in now. It would have been informative to hear his views on BLM staff relocations, and what impacts that would have on various stakeholder groups. More local, finely tuned, and nuanced planning might yield habitat benefits (some logging approaches preserve or enhance wildlife habitat needs; 19th century logging tended to strip light softwoods for pulp, leaving heavy wood behind, opening canopy promoting edge and deer, but hurt moose because of brainworm; winter kedging and spring logging runs were hard on lakes and fishermen; companies abandoning logged lands to tax seizures was destructive especially when deed transfers had not been recorded, and settlements were seized by the state; those settlements had brought orchards and truck gardens, etc that shifted diversity in the area… this small example shows many of the elements of entanglement that may benefit from sorting out on a more local process).
Bottom line, there’s volumes not being said about what Wyden hopes to accomplish, what opportunities that this may open for hunters and fishermen, as well as negative impacts for the widely diverse various lands under BLM management.
I`ll put it real simple, republicans,as a group, will never protect the national parks. But they enjoy the use of them & then turn around & drill a oil well right in the middle. They have no regards for their ancestors later. Once gone it`s hard as hell to get those places back, if ever. Another thing is that the upstream mining operation is ridiculous, the fish probably won`t survive and again once gone, restoration is next to impossible. I have seen most of the parks out west & never seen an ugly place, even saw the Boars Tusk in Wyoming, Marvelous