New America Submission Guidelines: Publishing Policy Commentary

Key takeaways

• New America publishes most policy commentary through individual programs, so a pitch that names a specific program and editor moves faster than a message sent to a general inbox.
• Editors test four things: a specific argument, evidence a reader can check, timing tied to a live policy decision, and the writer's standing to make the claim.
• Online commentary typically runs 900 to 1,500 words, while longer analysis and reports go through program research channels with heavier review.
• Original, unpublished work is the norm. Settle rights and exclusivity before you send the same draft anywhere else.
• Fit beats prestige. A narrow technology-policy argument often lands faster at a focused publication than at a general think tank.

1. Introduction

A researcher finishes a 1,200-word analysis of spectrum licensing, searches for "New America submissions," and finds the main site, a list of programs, and no submission form. That gap stops most outside writers before they pitch anything.

New America is a Washington think tank that publishes across a set of semi-autonomous programs, and its commentary reaches Congressional staff, reporters, and other researchers. It is not a magazine with one submission desk. The organization hires its own researchers and fellows, and most published work carries an internal byline. Outside writers do get published, but they usually arrive through a program relationship rather than a central queue.

This article explains how that pipeline works, what program editors evaluate, how to write a pitch that clears review, and how New America compares with other outlets that publish policy commentary. It is written for researchers, practitioners, and former officials who have something specific to say about policy and need to place it somewhere credible.

2. How New America's publishing pipeline works

Submissions route through programs, not through a single editorial office. Anyone pitching New America should start by identifying the program whose research agenda touches their argument.

New America's programs, such as the Open Technology Institute, the Education Policy program, and the Future of Land and Housing, run their own blogs, briefs, and events. Programs change as funding shifts, so confirm the current list on the site rather than relying on an older directory. Each program has an editor or communications lead whose name appears on program pages and in published pieces.

The main New America site sits above the programs and carries weekly commentary, cross-program analysis, and longer-form work. That layer receives more editorial attention and mostly runs pieces from staff, fellows, and invited contributors. A cold pitch to the central editorial address competes with everything else in the building.

Published work falls into three rough layers. The lengths below reflect typical published pieces and serve as a planning guide, not a published rule.

Practical steps for an outside writer:

1. Pick one program. If your work touches broadband subsidies, that is the Open Technology Institute, not New America as a whole.
2. Read the last ten posts from that program. Note the format, the citation habits, and how much policy detail the authors assume readers already have.
3. Find the editor named on the program page or in the byline footer.
4. Send a short pitch that states the argument in one sentence and ties it to something the program has already published.

A program connection can also come from co-authoring with a staff researcher. That route takes longer to arrange but produces a stronger editorial case, because an internal author vouches for the argument inside the building.

3. What program editors evaluate before they say yes

Editors apply four tests, and a pitch that fails any one of them usually gets a short reply or none at all.

An argument has to be specific enough to disagree with. "The digital divide needs more funding" is a topic. "The Affordable Connectivity Program's shutdown left rural co-ops with a billing problem that the FCC's replacement rules do not solve" is a claim with edges.

Evidence has to be checkable. Program editors want a data point, a document, a filing, or a documented case. Writers who bring original analysis, such as a dataset they assembled or interviews they conducted, get more attention than writers who summarize coverage from other outlets.

Timing matters because think tank commentary lives or dies with the news cycle and the legislative calendar. A piece on a bill that reaches markup next week has a home. The same piece six weeks later does not. If your argument is durable rather than timely, say so in the pitch and let the editor decide where it fits.

Author standing rounds out the list. Editors ask what qualifies you to make this claim. A state broadband office staffer writing about subsidy administration carries more weight than a generalist writing about the same topic. Degrees matter less than direct exposure to the problem.

Two additional considerations shape the decision. New America's house style favors explanation over advocacy: pieces tend to describe a problem, present data, and name trade-offs, leaving the political conclusion to the reader. Some programs publish work closer to advocacy, and the tone varies by program. Editors also ask about funding and affiliations. New America publishes its funders, and the institute's 2018 split with its Open Markets team after that group's criticism of Google drew outside scrutiny to how funder relationships are read. Writers with industry funding, board seats, or consulting contracts should disclose them in the pitch rather than waiting for the question.

If your draft reads as a campaign statement for an organization, an advocacy outlet will serve it better. New America's value to a reader is the explanation, not the position paper.

4. Building a pitch that survives review

A pitch that clears review fits on one screen and answers the editor's questions before they are asked. Use this structure:

• Subject line: the argument, not the topic. "Why the FCC's replacement subsidy rules miss rural co-ops" tells an editor more than "Pitch: broadband policy."
• The claim in one or two sentences.
• Why now: the vote, filing deadline, report release, or court date that makes the piece urgent.
• The evidence you bring: your data, documents, or interviews, with a note on what is not yet public.
• Author credentials: current role, relevant prior work, and two links to published writing.
• Proposed length and format: match the layer in the table above.
• Disclosure: funding sources, affiliations, and whether the piece draws on work you did for an employer or client.
• Exclusivity: state that the piece is unpublished and not under consideration elsewhere.

Wait for a reply rather than sending a finished draft with the first email. Most editors prefer to shape the argument before the writing starts, and an unsolicited full draft signals that the writer has not read the program's output.

Common mistakes that end a pitch early:

• Sending to a general address instead of a program editor.
• Offering an op-ed that already ran in a newspaper. Most outlets want first publication rights, and a piece that has already appeared is generally a rejection.
• Attaching a 3,000-word essay to a first contact.
• Writing in academic register with a literature review. Policy commentary assumes a smart reader who does not know your subfield.
• Omitting the disclosure section, which forces an editor to ask later.

Follow up once, after about two weeks, with a short note that adds something new, such as a fresh data point or a news development. If there is still no reply, move the piece to another outlet. Editorial queues at think tanks run long, and a silent inbox is not a judgment on the work.

5. Comparing New America with other policy commentary outlets

The right outlet depends on career stage, topic, and how quickly the argument needs to appear. The table below summarizes where each type of outlet is strong, where it is limited, and who fits best.

Career stage shapes the choice as much as topic does. An early-career researcher with one strong data point is better served by The Conversation or a focused technology outlet than by a general think tank that expects an established publication record. Senior researchers with institutional affiliations can aim at Brookings or a New America program and use the affiliation as the introduction.

Time sensitivity works the other way. If a rulemaking comment period closes in ten days, pitch an outlet with a short queue and a fast editing cycle. A think tank that takes three weeks to respond will publish the piece after the decision. For durable arguments, the slower outlet usually delivers a better-edited result and a longer shelf life.

6. FAQ

Q1. Does New America accept unsolicited pitches from writers with no institutional affiliation?

It does, though the realistic entry point is a program editor rather than a central submissions address. Independent writers should expect questions about credentials, data sources, and funding. A pitch that includes original evidence and a clear link to a program's existing research gets read; a general essay about a broad problem usually does not.

Q2. How long should a New America commentary piece be?

Online commentary typically runs 900 to 1,500 words, and program blog posts sit at the shorter end of that range. Longer analysis goes through research channels with a different review process. Confirm the target length with the editor before drafting, because a 2,500-word essay written for a 1,200-word slot either gets cut hard or rejected.

Q3. Can I republish the piece after it runs?

Ask before publication and get the terms in writing. Many outlets take first-publication rights and allow republication after a delay with a credit line naming the original publisher. Others want exclusivity for a set period. A writer who reposts without checking can damage the relationship that produced the byline.

Q4. What causes the fastest rejection?

A pitch that covers a topic without making a claim, a draft that has already been published elsewhere, or a submission that ignores the timing of the policy decision it addresses. Editors also reject pieces that read as public relations for an employer, which is why the disclosure section of a pitch carries weight.

7. Conclusion

New America works for writers whose argument attaches to a specific program and who can support it with data, a clear explanation of trade-offs, and a reason the piece matters this month rather than next year. The path runs through a program editor, a one-screen pitch, and a length that matches the outlet layer you are targeting.

Before sending anything, read the recent output from the program you have in mind, confirm the current editor, and settle your rights and disclosure language. If the argument is timely and the program fit is weak, a focused technology or academic outlet with a faster queue will place the piece sooner. If the fit is strong and the argument can wait, the program route produces a better-edited piece and a more durable citation.