This is really simple. The courts must take into account both the content and context of a policy to determine if it has an impermissible purpose. Trump recognized that he needed to change the flawed content, and did. The judge invited Trump to change the flawed context but for someone reason you don’t think he should. Then it remains flawed. Easy. Like the content itself it stays broken until fixed.
You can complain about requiring homage to some sort of “alter of political correctness” all you want but the law requires the judge to determine if the law had a discriminatory purpose, and to consider the overall context of the policy when doing so, to include “statements by decision makers.” If he did not consider those things the judge would not be doing his job according to the standards imposed on him by higher courts.
Trump’s wounds in this regard are self-inflicted, but the court says he has the ability to heal them. If Trump chooses to the let them fester that is his decision. If Trump chooses to add to those wounds with more such arrogant words, that too is his decision.