Questions for Steve Pearce: A guide for senators

Ever since President Trump nominated him to lead the Bureau of Land Management in November, former New Mexico House member Steve Pearce has been heavily criticized for his embrace of the public land sell-off agenda, including by public officials in Western states. The BLM is the nation’s largest land management agency, overseeing some 245 million acres, and Pearce needs to be put on the record about these positions. 

On Wednesday, February 25th, Pearce will finally be questioned before a Senate hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He will eventually face a vote by the full chamber, where he’ll need to secure 50 votes for confirmation. Expect some kind of retrenchment or a more conciliatory tone on Pearce’s part, as he tries to show a softer side and get senators to support him. But don’t mistake that for a genuine change in ideology or indication that he’d moderate his approach once he is director. 

Here are some of the questions we’d like to hear Steve Pearce answer—and for our elected officials to keep in mind as we set ourselves to the task of defending against Pearce’s actions at the BLM, in the very likely event he is confirmed.  

In summer 2025, Americans of every political variety resoundingly rejected Sen. Mike Lee’s attempts to sell off millions of acres of our public lands in the budget reconciliation process. It remains the biggest recent flashpoint in the conservation vs. privatization debate. Steve Pearce should weigh in on it if he plans to take over the agency that oversees more public lands than any other.  

Would Pearce give a straight answer? Who knows. But we can make an educated guess as to his true feelings on the matter. Pearce has been compared to Lee by observers in New Mexico, and like Lee, he has a long legislative track record of pushing a pro-sell-off agenda. Back in 2005, Pearce voted for an ultimately failed provision in the budget reconciliation bill that would have allowed the sale of BLM and other public lands at far below market rates to mining companies.  In a 2012 letter written with Rep. Rob Bishop to House Speaker Boehner, Pearce argued to "divest” the government of public lands, highlighting the BLM estate as an especially good opportunity for savings. And in 2016, most infamously, Pearce cosponsored a bill that would speed up the sale or exchange of some nationally managed public lands, including BLM lands. 

If Pearce does get a question like this, he will almost certainly answer “no,” because Lee’s proposal was grossly unpopular. So senators should consider going a layer deeper; see next question.

In that 2012 letter to then-House Speaker Rep. Boehner about “fiscal cliff” negotiations (see above) Pearce called for “divesting the federal government of its vast land holdings" to reduce federal spending. Most public land, Pearce argued, "we do not even need.” Well, let’s get some specifics. Can Pearce show us on a map where these lands are (”most” of our nation’s hundreds of millions of acres of shared lands, apparently)?  

The question is more than rhetorical. If confirmed, Pearce would have ample opportunity to move us closer to public land sales or giveaways. While BLM is required by law to retain its lands in national ownership—public lands are the ’default setting’—the agency does have the authority to sell or dispose of lands if it’s in the “national interest.” The criteria for the latter are open-ended enough that Pearce could explore opportunities to ramp up disposals under existing authorities if he is confirmed.  

In Congress, Pearce reliably voted to make things easier on fossil fuel producers: against cutting subsidies for oil and gas companies, for speeding up approval of oil and gas leases and against efforts to make oil and gas companies keep contingency plans for oil spills and other disasters. In 2016, Pearce offered an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill that would have blocked any efforts to raise the royalty rates oil and gas companies pay for drilling on public lands—effectively saying that American taxpayers don’t deserve a fair return for the depletion of our natural resources (not to mention the costs of climate change and environmental damage). The latter issue is as relevant as ever; recent analysis found that the administration’s oil and gas royalty rate cuts will cost taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars in lost revenue in the years ahead. 

That year, he also vocally worked against implementation of the BLM’s rule that was aimed at reducing natural gas waste and methane pollution from oil and gas operations on public lands, a stance that even some conservatives criticized. In 2018, Pearce introduced two bills that would have decreased review and oversight of certain types of oil and gas projects–including roads and pipelines–regardless of their impact.  

These actions all point to a belief that the fossil fuel industry should enjoy wide latitude to operate on our public lands, and we shouldn’t expect too much in return (or for companies to clean up after themselves). Of course, that fits perfectly with this administration’s “Energy Dominance” agenda and their efforts to crush public input and end any movement toward balanced and sustainable management. But let’s get Pearce on the record, so the American people can hear him say it: Drilling and mining matters more than you do. 

Steve Pearce has made no secret of his distaste for the Antiquities Act, the law used by both Democratic and Republican presidents since 1906 to protect culturally, historically, or scientifically significant public lands as national monuments. In Congress, he voted many times to make the Antiquities Act harder to use, and he even introduced a bill to prevent a president establishing any national monument in his home state of New Mexico. But no single monument has drawn more of his ire than Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, which was designated by President Obama in 2014. Pearce opposed the designation, claiming it would worsen quality of life for communities. Later, he lobbied hard to “[resize] the designation”--i.e. shrink it drastically (Pearce’s vision called for an 88% reduction in acreage from the monument as established). 

But more than a decade after President Obama's declaration, it would be hard to call the monument anything but a success. A 2023 report [PDF] found that it has brought increased visitation and economic activity to the area, driving more than $234 million in cumulative economic impacts for the region. In a similar vein, new analysis of large national monuments in the West refutes Pearce’s suggestions that monument status brings economic hardship. If anything, research suggests monuments bring more jobs and more business opportunities. That has certainly been the case for the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks--and it calls into question Pearce’s hostility toward national monuments and the law used to conserve them.     

As if all that wasn’t enough, national monuments are—like public lands on the whole—very popular. The most recent edition of Colorado College’s “Conservation in the West” poll found that 91% of Western voters want existing national monument designations kept in place. In the 2024 poll, 85% supported establishing new monuments and other public lands protections. 

In the run-up the 2012 election, Pearce produced a now-infamous soundbite, expressing hope that a Romney administration would help “reverse the trend of public ownership” of public lands. In that same speech, Pearce mockingly referenced Theodore Roosevelt’s “big ideas of big forests and big national parks.” Is this guy for real?  

The 26th president’s conservation ethic has been embraced by elected officials of every stripe—including current Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and President Trump himself (whether these guys actually live up to the Rooseveltian ideal is a separate matter). Recently, President Roosevelt’s great-grandson and other descendants published an open letter criticizing elected officials for their failure to embrace conservation. Judging by his past remarks, Pearce represents an acute example of that failed leadership. 

If Pearce is this far outside of the mainstream on public lands what business does he have overseeing 245 million acres of our public lands?