Sounds like one of the best possible candidates; someone to help “drain the swamp” at the BLM.
Actually, Constitutionally, there should be no BLM, as there should be no Federal acquisition of land merely to hold land. The Constitution limits Federal land acquisition to only as needed to house some work the Federal government is doing.
All Federal land NOT in active use by the Federal government should in part be turned over to the states, particularly in the western states, and in part sold off (including in the western states).
The “outdoor life” lobbies will protest, and claim their billion dollar industries will be hurt, yet the lie in that is that instead of lobbying the federal government they will need to lobby their state governments, and the end result might not be as forbidding to their interests as they claim.
Meanwhile the western states, like Alaska, will be able - like Alaska, to pursue productive life of THEIR natural resources, on their own, and like Alaska obtaining the royalty income from it, unhindered by the BLM.
If the federal government is holding that land illegally then how can they legally sell it?
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents federal land ownership. And this would issue can be solved at the stroke of a pen by Congress passing legislation selling land the government does own back to the states. Problem solved.