US President Donald Trump's re-election campaign said on Wednesday it was filing a libel suit accusing the New York Times of intentionally publishing a false opinion article that suggested Russia and the campaign had an overarching deal in the 2016 election.

In an escalation of the Republican president's long-running battle with the news media, campaign officials said the lawsuit was being filed in New York State Supreme Court, the state's trial-level court.

More:

A statement from the campaign said the aim of the suit against the Times, among the most prominent American news organisations, was to hold the newspaper "accountable for intentionally publishing false statements against President Trump's campaign".

The lawsuit relates to a March 27, 2019, opinion article written by Max Frankel, who served as executive editor of the Times from 1986 to 1994.

A draft copy of the suit, attached to a campaign news release, accused the newspaper of "extreme bias against [the campaign] and animosity" and cited what it called the Times' "exuberance to improperly influence the presidential election in November 2020".

In a statement, a New York Times spokesperson said: "The Trump Campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable. Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgments and conclusions, especially about events of public importance. We look forward to vindicating that right in this case."

The newspaper's spokesperson said it had not been served with the suit and learned about it through media reports.

Trump's criticism of what he calls liberal bias in the US news media plays well with his conservative political base and often generates applause at his political rallies where his supporters often jeer journalists.

The New York Times was involved in a landmark 1964 Supreme Court ruling that has served as a safeguard for media reporting on public figures.

In the case New York Times v Sullivan, the court decided that the US Constitution's First Amendment protection for freedom of the press allows even statements that are false to be published as long as the publication was not done with "actual malice" or with "reckless disregard for the truth."

The opinion piece was headlined, The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo, with a subhead adding, "The campaign and the Kremlin had an overarching deal: help beat Hillary Clinton for a new pro-Russian foreign policy."

In it, Frankel stated, "Collusion - or a lack of it - turns out to have been the rhetorical trap that ensnared President Trump's pursuers."

Frankel added, "There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin's oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration's burdensome economic sanctions. The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo."

In a statement on the lawsuit, Jenna Ellis, senior legal adviser to Donald J Trump for President, Inc, said, "The statements were and are 100 percent false and defamatory. The complaint alleges The Times was aware of the falsity at the time it published them, but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign, while misleading its own readers in the process."

In a copy of the lawsuit provided by his re-election team, the campaign stated, "The Times was well aware when it published these statements that they were not true."