Lawfare Submission Guidelines: Pitching Law and Security Commentary

Key Takeaways

• Lawfare publishes argument-driven analysis of national security law, courts, executive power, cybersecurity, and technology policy. Editors respond to pitches that state a specific claim and give a reason it matters now.
• A workable pitch runs a few short paragraphs: thesis, evidence, timing, and author credentials. It reads like a compressed draft.
• Speed matters for litigation and policy news. A pitch sent within a day or two of a ruling or announcement can land the piece inside the news cycle.
• Fit decides more outcomes than prose quality. Lawfare, Just Security, War on the Rocks, Tech Policy Press, and Foreign Affairs reach different audiences, and a piece sent to the wrong one usually fails on fit.
• Non-lawyers can publish on Lawfare when the argument turns on legal questions. Co-authorship with a doctrinal expert is a common path.

1. Introduction

National security law now moves at news speed. Courts rule on wartime authorities within hours of filings, agencies publish AI and surveillance rules on short comment windows, and executive actions on sanctions or immigration draw legal challenges in the same week. Practitioners who want to shape this conversation have a narrow window: analysis published within two days of a decision can influence how journalists, congressional staff, and judges' clerks frame the issue.

Lawfare is one of the main venues for that analysis. Founded in 2010 by Benjamin Wittes, Jack Goldsmith, and Robert Chesney, it grew from a group blog into a publication with articles, podcasts, book reviews, and explanatory primers. Its readers include government lawyers, congressional staff, academics, and journalists who treat it as a daily briefing on law and security.

The obstacle for most first-time contributors is procedural. They send a topic summary ("thoughts on the new executive order"), hear nothing, and conclude the outlet is closed to outsiders. Lawfare publishes outside authors regularly. What separates accepted pitches from ignored ones is specific: a stated thesis, evidence the author can actually produce, a timing rationale, and a clear account of the author's authority on the subject. This article covers what the outlet publishes, how to build the pitch, how the editorial process works, and how to choose between Lawfare and comparable venues.

2. What Lawfare publishes and who reads it

The editorial test is whether a piece changes how a reader understands a live legal or governance dispute. Lawfare's coverage spans litigation over presidential power, intelligence law, cybersecurity, the laws of war, technology regulation, immigration, and sanctions. Its formats include short commentary, long analytical essays, litigation explainers, book reviews, and open letters signed by groups of scholars. The audience is professional. Pieces assume the reader can parse a complaint, a statute, or a court order without hand-holding.

That assumption shapes what gets accepted. A piece that only reports what happened will lose to one that explains what it means for pending litigation, agency authority, or legislation. Editors want a claim a reader could disagree with, defended with sources.

Two practical steps follow from this. First, read two weeks of recent output before pitching, then name in your pitch which recent piece yours sits next to and what different argument it makes. Second, decide which of the two timing windows you are in. Breaking analysis should reach the editors within a day or two of the news, and your pitch should say what your access adds, whether that is documents you have reviewed, a docket you have tracked, or a role you held. Evergreen explainers can be pitched any time and scheduled more freely, which makes them a better fit when you have depth rather than urgency.

3. Writing the pitch

Treat the pitch as a compressed draft with a position in it. Most pitches in this genre work at 150 to 300 words; if the argument needs a full page to explain, it has not been settled yet. The structure that editors can evaluate quickly has five parts:

1. A working headline that states the claim.
2. A thesis paragraph of two or three sentences that takes a position a reader could dispute.
3. Evidence: the rulings, filings, statutes, datasets, or firsthand experience that support it, named specifically.
4. Timing: the news hook or policy window that makes this week the right week.
5. An author line with title, affiliation, and one or two publications or roles that establish command of the subject.

A plain template for the email:

Subject: Pitch: [the claim in one line]

Paragraph 1: thesis and news hook. Paragraph 2: evidence, named sources. Paragraph 3: author credentials and timing.

A finished draft is also acceptable, especially for evergreen work where the argument is already worked out. For breaking stories, a pitch with a draft in progress beats waiting for polish. Keep the submission exclusive while editors consider it; sending the identical piece to two outlets the same day creates a real problem when both accept. If a time-sensitive pitch gets no reply within about a day, a short follow-up email is reasonable. After that, take the piece elsewhere, because the news cycle will not wait.

4. Length, sourcing, and the editing process

Plan for a real edit and for citations to be checked. Commentary usually runs between about 1,000 and 2,000 words, while litigation explainers and primers can run several thousand. Cite primary sources with hyperlinks: complaints, briefs, statutes, agency documents. Editors check legal citations, so verify case captions and reporter citations before you submit. Sloppy citations on an otherwise strong piece give an editor a reason to pass.

Disclosure is part of the deal. State anything a reader would want to know: current or former government roles, clients with a stake in the issue, funding sources. Government employees should clear the piece through ethics review before pitching. Outlets in this space, Lawfare included, commonly attach a line noting that the views are the author's own, and that line does not substitute for the author's own compliance obligations.

Expect the editing depth to match the format. Breaking commentary tends to get a fast, light edit; primers and long analytical essays go through more rounds. Ask the editor about payment and exclusivity terms when they accept, since terms differ by piece type. If you are organizing a sign-on letter, one organizer should contact the editors, agree on the text, and maintain the signature list. Forty co-signers emailing separately is how letters get lost.

5. Comparing outlets: where to send your argument

A well-written piece still fails when the outlet's readers do not need it. The comparison below places Lawfare among its neighbors for law and security commentary.

Sequencing matters as much as venue choice. A breaking court ruling on a security question goes to Lawfare or Just Security within 24 to 48 hours. An operational military or alliance question goes to War on the Rocks. US-focused AI and platform debates go to Tech Policy Press; a piece comparing regulatory approaches across jurisdictions works better at smaller global-regulation outlets. A big strategic argument without a news hook deserves weeks of development, then a Foreign Affairs attempt. Each editor expects original work for their publication, so adapt the piece per outlet rather than submitting identical text.

6. FAQ

Q1. Do I need a law degree to write for Lawfare?

No. The publication has run work from technologists, political scientists, historians, and former intelligence officers. The requirement is command of the legal question at stake. If the doctrinal analysis exceeds your training, co-author with a lawyer; joint bylines on such pieces are routine.

Q2. Should I send a pitch or a finished draft?

Both are accepted. Pitch when the story is moving and speed decides whether the piece lands. Send a draft for evergreen explainers where the argument is complete. Even a draft should arrive with a two-sentence thesis at the top, so the editor knows the claim without reconstructing it.

Q3. How fast does the process move?

It depends on timeliness. Breaking commentary can be accepted and edited within days, which is the reason to pitch fast. Longer analytical work takes longer and goes through more editing rounds. Keep the submission exclusive while it is under review, and clear any reposting plans with the editors.

Q4. What gets a pitch rejected most often?

A topic with no argument. "Reflections on the new AI executive order" gives an editor nothing to evaluate. A claim, the evidence behind it, and a reason it matters this week give them something to say yes to.

7. Conclusion

For law and security experts with a specific claim about a live dispute, Lawfare is a strong target with a workable process: read its recent output, send a short pitch with a thesis and named evidence, move within the news cycle, and disclose what readers should know about you. If the argument sits elsewhere, whether operational defense, cross-border tech regulation, or a large strategic frame, send it to the outlet whose readers need it most, and keep a second venue ready in case the first passes. Contributors who publish consistently in this field pick one argument per piece and state it in the first paragraph.