Gig 601XL Builder writes:

But while sovereign immunity has been reduced much over the years national
security issues is one place where it still carries some weight and I see no
court deciding that protection of the President should be secondary to some
commercial loss.

Why not? The USA is a democracy, and the President is only one part of a
government that employs a balance of powers. This being so, there's a limit
to the President's importance to the nation, and therefore a limit to the
measures that can reasonably be justified to protect him. The constant
inflationary spiral of these measures has to stop somewhere. Bringing a city
to a halt is not really justified, not even for the President.