Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Submission Guidelines

Key takeaways

• CNAS publishes several formats with different bars: research reports, issue briefs, site commentary, and event or podcast appearances. Pitching the wrong one costs months.
• Most outside contributions start with a short email pitch, not a finished draft. The pitch has to name the policy decision the work informs.
• Editorial review at CNAS is a research quality and relevance check, not academic peer review. Commentary decisions usually arrive in weeks; funded reports take months.
• Fit matters more than prestige. A 1,000-word commentary in the right program reaches more relevant readers than a report that sits unread.
• Strong CNAS submissions share four traits: a one-sentence argument, specific evidence, an author who can deliver, and a timing hook tied to a real policy calendar.

1. Introduction

CNAS belongs to the small group of Washington think tanks that congressional staff, Pentagon planners, and reporters read on deadline. Founded in 2007, it built its reputation on defense research during the Iraq and Afghanistan surge years and later expanded into Indo-Pacific security, technology and national security, artificial intelligence, energy and economics, and civil-military relations.

That reach creates a specific problem for outside researchers, graduate students, former officials, and industry analysts who want to publish there. CNAS does not run one open submission pipeline the way an academic journal does. Its catalog mixes formats with different audiences, review timelines, and expectations about who writes them. Someone who pitches a 40-page report when the idea works as a 1,000-word commentary may wait a quarter for a rejection. Someone who sends a finished manuscript to a general inbox with no framing gets ignored.

This guide explains how CNAS publication types differ, what a workable pitch contains, how internal review typically runs, and how CNAS compares with peer outlets where a national security argument could also land. It is written for people who have something to say about defense or technology policy and need to decide where and how to say it.

2. Which CNAS format fits your argument

Decide the publication type by the evidence you hold and the decision you want to influence, not by the length you feel like writing.

Timelines reflect how think tank review generally runs. Confirm current specifics with the program you approach, because funded projects and co-authored reports move on their own schedules.

Evidence volume usually settles the choice. A commentary can rest on one document, a set of interviews, and a clear recommendation. A report needs enough original material to survive review by people who know the subject. If your evidence base is a single new data set and its implications, an issue brief is the honest fit.

A second consideration is who already writes on your topic. CNAS program staff publish continuously, and editors read a pitch with their own researchers' recent output in mind. A pitch that positions your argument relative to that work, and states what it adds, reads as informed. One that ignores it reads as a mass mailing.

Read the last six months of output from the program closest to your topic before writing anything. Note the arguments and the gaps, then pick the format that closes a gap rather than repeats a point.

3. What an effective pitch contains

A pitch is a decision document. It should let an editor say yes or no in five minutes without opening an attachment.

Most outside contributions begin with a short email rather than a full draft. A workable pitch runs 150 to 300 words and covers six things.

1. The argument in one sentence. State the claim, not the topic. "The Navy's maintenance backlog is a readiness problem" is a topic. "The maintenance backlog grew because of X, and the current budget request does not reverse it" is an argument.
2. What is new. Unpublished data, newly obtained documents, access to people who have not spoken on the record, or a synthesis across cases nobody has assembled.
3. The evidence you already hold. List interviews completed, data sets in hand, declassified documents, or field research. Editors weigh delivery risk heavily.
4. Format and target length. Name both. A commentary of about 1,000 words, or a brief of about 15 pages.
5. Timing. Tie the piece to a date on the policy calendar: a mark-up, a budget roll-out, a strategy release, a summit, a major exercise. Pieces without a hook still get published, but timing improves the odds.
6. Author details. Current role, relevant background, prior publications, and any funder or institutional affiliation that could create a conflict of interest.

Two cautions apply. Some prospective authors offer a topic with no evidence behind it and expect the institution to fund the research. That does not happen. Others fold a partisan argument into a research pitch. CNAS states that it does not take institutional positions on policy issues, which shapes how a piece must be framed: the evidence and the recommendation carry the argument, and the political framing stays out.

Draft the opening three paragraphs before you send anything. If those paragraphs do not work, the pitch will not either. Include the draft only when it is short and polished; otherwise attach nothing and describe the piece in the email body.

4. Review, editing, and disclosure

Once an editor accepts a pitch, the piece moves through several stages. A program researcher or director reads for analytical soundness. A research quality review traces claims and citations. An editorial pass handles structure and style. Public affairs coordinates launch timing, which is why publication dates sometimes shift.

What authors should plan for:

• Sourcing standards. Claims get checked. Anonymous sourcing needs justification, and interviews with government officials may need to be on the record for a report, while commentary can rely on published material.
• Length discipline. Editors cut. A 1,400-word commentary pitched at 1,000 words comes back shorter, not longer.
• Funding and affiliation disclosure. Think tanks publish their funder lists and authors disclose outside support. If a defense contractor, a foreign government, or an advocacy group funds your work, say so at the pitch stage. Hidden funding ends the relationship once it surfaces.
• Political balance. An institution that claims nonpartisanship will ask whether your recommendation holds up from more than one ideological starting point.
• No duplicate submission surprises. If the piece is under review elsewhere, tell the editor. Most outlets treat simultaneous submission as a problem.

Timelines differ by format. Commentary decisions usually arrive within one to three weeks, and silence past that point generally means no. Report proposals take longer because they involve program priorities and funding decisions.

Ask the editor two questions before you start writing: what length do you want, and what publication window are you targeting. Both answers change how you write.

5. How CNAS compares with peer outlets

CNAS is a strong home for defense and technology policy arguments aimed at U.S. government decision-makers. Other outlets suit different arguments, timelines, and career stages.

Technology policy writers have a few additional options. Global Tech Observatory (globaltechobs.com) publishes commentary on technology governance and reaches specialists outside the Beltway, with faster turnaround on shorter pieces. Its audience is smaller than the legacy think tanks, and congressional staff are less likely to recognize the name, so it works better as a complement to a Washington outlet than as a substitute for one.

Three practical rules follow from the table. Time-sensitive arguments belong in commentary, where a two-week decision keeps the piece relevant. Arguments that rest on original data belong in a brief or report, where the review process can absorb the evidence. Arguments that need legal reasoning or a broad international frame belong somewhere other than CNAS, and forcing them there wastes the editor's time and yours.

6. FAQ

Does CNAS accept unsolicited submissions?

In practice, yes, with differences by format. Commentary pitches and issue brief proposals from outside experts reach editors regularly. Full research reports are usually initiated inside a program or commissioned, and outside authors join as co-authors or contributors. A cold email to a general inbox with no framing rarely gets read, so identify the program and the person first.

How long does the review take?

Commentary decisions take one to three weeks, followed by editing. Issue briefs run from several weeks to a few months. Reports take three to six months including quality review and production. Timelines stretch when a piece depends on interviews or on clearance from a government employer.

Can early-career researchers and non-U.S. authors publish with CNAS?

Both can, through different entry points. Early-career authors often publish via co-authorship with a staff researcher, a fellowship, or a commentary built on specialized technical knowledge. Non-U.S. authors face a higher bar on policy relevance: the argument usually needs to speak to U.S. policy choices or to a bilateral relationship Washington is actively managing.

Should I pitch a report or a commentary first?

Pitch the commentary first if you are new to the outlet. It has a shorter review, a smaller time commitment, and it builds an editorial relationship. Use the published piece as evidence when you later propose a longer research product.

7. Conclusion

The format decision drives everything else in a CNAS submission. A commentary and a research report go through different review paths, attract different readers, and demand different evidence, and picking the wrong one is the most common reason outside pitches stall.

For a first submission, narrow your target to one program, read its recent output, and write a 200-word pitch with a single-sentence argument and a timing hook. If the argument depends on a policy calendar and rests on published material, send a commentary pitch. If it depends on original data and can survive a longer review, propose a brief or a report. Where CNAS turns out not to be the right home, matching the outlet to the argument, rather than the outlet's name recognition, determines whether the work reaches the people who make decisions.