No. This point is certain from the plain text of Trump v. U.S. and from the related texts in the U.S. Constitution.

Trump v. U.S.

“Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
[…]
“When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6–9.

“(2) Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.”

Notice that absolute Presidential immunity ONLY pertains to “acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.”

The U.S. Constitution clearly shows that authority over the U.S. military is shared with Congress.

The President’s authority over the military is stated as follows:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

But Congress also has substantial authority over the military as well, as follows:

“The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

“To provide and maintain a Navy;

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Since authority over the military is not exclusive to the U.S. President, absolute immunity does not apply to the exercise of Presidential authority over the military.

Therefore, the U.S. President is not protected by absolute immunity, if he were to misuse the military, such as by a military coup, or by using military force to kill or imprison political rivals or opponents.

Furthermore, immunity for any official acts of the President, whether absolute or presumptive immunity, only applies to authority given to the President by the Constitution, exclusively or shared with Congress, and authority given by U.S. laws. Since the President has no authority to misuse the military, e.g. by a military coup or use of military force against political rivals or opponents, such misuse cannot fall under any type of immunity. But misuse is here defined as acts which may seem official, but which in reality have no basis in any authority given to the President by Constitution or Law. Such acts, even if written into allegedly official documents, are outside of true Presidential authority, and so have no immunity whatsoever.

Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion:

“Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”

Consider the suggestions that the President might use “Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival”, or organize “a military coup to hold onto power”. No such authority is given to the U.S. President under Constitution or Law, and so he would have no immunity at all for such acts. And the arguments made by lawyers for Trump are irrelevant to this point, as their position of unqualified absolute immunity was rejected by the Court.

It is not sufficient, to obtain any immunity, for a Presidential act merely to pertain to a general subject area over which the President has authority, such as his power over the military. Rather, his acts, in order to be official and thereby have either absolute or presumptive immunity, must be an exercise of authority specifically granted by Constitution or Law, and be within the limits of that Constitutional or Legal authority. Therefore, acts of a President contrary to U.S. Law — unless such laws are unconstitutional — lack even presumptive immunity.

The suggestion that the President might “place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation” is concerning, as a bad motivation for a person who is entrusted with governing the Nation. However, bad motivations are not illegal or unconstitutional. Such a problem of placing one’s own interests — political, financial, or otherwise — above the interests of the Nation and its people is a common criticism of all political positions in all three branches of government. The remedy is voting other persons into office in their place.

The suggestion that the President is now above the Law is contradicted by the Opinion of Trump v. U.S., which only allows immunity for acts authorized by Constitution or Law. In addition, the President is subject to Impeachment and Trial by the House and the Senate, respectively. If convicted, the Constitution states:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

The U.S. President is not excluded from the phrasing “the Party convicted”. Therefore, he is subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment according to Law, IF he has been impeached by the House and Convicted by the Senate.

Whether or not a U.S. President can be impeached after leaving office has not been decided by the Supreme Court. But this power of impeachment not only removes from office, but also disqualifies a person from holding any office under the United States; and this suggests that Congress can impeach and possibly convict a former President. Such action by Congress toward a former President would have the purpose of disqualifying the convicted person from future office and allowing that person to be liable to further prosecution, removing the presumption from presumptive immunity.

One can easily see the usefulness and necessity of such a power — impeachment after a person leaves office. Suppose a President resigns after impeachment, so as to avoid conviction. Then later he might run for a second term. Suppose a Federal Judge resigns after impeachment, but similarly plan to return to office later, and this could be made more likely if there is a change in party power in Congress. Such attempts would thwart or nullify the power given to Congress to impeach, to convict, and to thereby disqualify from future office. Such nullification cannot be the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, Congress may impeach and convict a former U.S. President, and the same for other offices subject to impeachment.

Ronald L Conte Jr