The US government´s logic works because they do not claim not to care about race. Even Trump proudly talks about low unemployment of different minority groups (and doesnt even mention his own race, btw).
This statement...
[BTW just to make sure: You do acknowledge the genetic basis for race, right? Because some people do not]
...and this statement contradict each other.
You are wrong on pretty much all accounts.
First - the one where you are correct.
That legal text snippet indeed says, that the government can 'address' race to a point where it may even be racist (looking at race in an application form) - but only in very narrow circumstances, when 'addressing race differences' is in the compelling interest of said government.
Whatever Trump says is a different thing entirely he doesnt make the law, and throws racial epitaphs pretty much all day. Signs presidential decrees and cant get anything done.
But the point is, that there is a legal clause, for when the government is allowed to be racist (act on race differences in a way that in our case disadvantages asians, if its int he 'higher interest' of that government (= higher good argument, f.e. 'for the stability of society). And it is defined, that it has to be 'narrow use'. So you cant use it all day on everything.
I don't acknowledge the genetic basis of race, because race normally and historically is either a self attribution (I am ...), or an attribution made based on easily perceivable visual characteristics. We had this argument in here before. Blood groups also are a genetic difference between different groups, we don't pronounce races based on bloodtypes - and whatever you find genetically to separate one racial group from another, its done after the fact and never clear cut.
Back to our example of
In Ethiopia they are on the verge of another war between their ethnic groups again (first time in years)
https://www.google.com/search?q=Hundessa
There it is Tigrayer vs. Oromo vs. Amhare
People there also call their differences racial, and if you want to hear a statement of some dude crying over one person being killed, because he was "pure ethiopian", you know an Oromo.. Here, knock yourself out:
https://www.dw.com/en/ethiopia-the-killing-of-hachalu-hundessa-cuts-deep/a-54024538
Also we have people of mixed race in which case the genetic differentiation becomes really stupid.
Race was always an attribution made by "seeing a difference" and then "calling it something" - the 'genetical foundation' only came in later, and was always used as a pseudoscientific excuse - for something that existed earlier: Race terminology and racism. There is no scientific definition of what consists a human race (thats what Nazis tried to establish, and we got rid of), or another - genetically, race is only used as a label (you have to call something, something when talking about it), not as a 'genetic class' (species).
--
Me not caring about race - and at the same time acknowledging that other people do ("structural racism does exist") and also believing that you have to act on it, when addressing it - is not the same thing.
--
And this is the problem I have with you - your logic is faulty, you accuse others of being inconsistent, when the only detail/elaboration you personally allow is on the level of "if you believe racism exists, you must care about using it" (why?), and "but government is always racist". And then not looking at the argumentation for a law that literally says - you cant be racist, except in this narrow case (higher governmental interest, f.e. in promoting diversity).
You havent even acknowledged the point, that by agreeing that you need 'cultural diversity' you are promoting race differences, and that there is no way around it.
You basically want to stay within your believe system, and not go any step further.
edit: Also, this entire 'top down government decides this way' thing is a power relationship, and not fair. In fact, it is entirely unfair from the individuals point of view. But the point being made is, that it might still be needed, for societal reasons. In narrow cases, while you are not allowed to overdo it, or make it a general argument.
Why? Because (exaggeration!), you dont want half of your highest level students to be asian, if you acknowledge that this might lead to public unrest, because many people believe in and act on racial group identities. Its the "I'm not racist, but sometimes I have to act racist" argument, that doesnt go over well with students (public), when given outright. So you dont give that argument publicly. But its there in law, specifically for that case (promoting cultural diversity in the governments interest).