I'll avoid a more sinister accusation of bad faith and assume you are earnest in that belief. As you seem to believe that, I suspect that's largely because your standard of evidence is different from others who believe differently.

If your standard is that no one in the White House has said explicitly "I am a white nationalist", then yes, that seems to be true and there is "no evidence".

But on the other hand, notable white identitarian/nationalist/supremacist figures are currently in the White House, have served in recent years, and indeed, there were entire administrations in the past four decades predicated on the belief that white individuals should have different rules in criminal law than non-white individuals, and strategies were pursued to incarcerate or diminish the status of non-white individuals.

Now, you may say "this is not evidence", but that's to my point. Your standard of evidence is different from others, and you aren't entertaining the idea that maybe, just maybe, these things are not coincidental. That a Muslim ban and "Superpredators" and the behavior of ICE/CBP and the implementation of federal criminal law toward low-level drug offenses (instead of much more societally damaging white collar crime usually perpetrated by wealthy white individuals) is just normal political discourse, not influenced by white supremacy.

You could believe that, and I believe it's possible to believe it earnestly. But I would challenge you to consider whether your standard of evidence in this case might be too high, or even impossible to meet for any smart white nationalist. If your standard is so high that, all it would take is for White House officials to "hide their power level" (using chan-board speak) and use metaphor or coded language while accomplishing the same ends explicitly white nationalist outsiders push for, then is it a useful standard of evidence?

Or, lastly, to bring it full circle: is your standard of evidence impossible to meet for someone who is a smart bad faith actor?