White is essentially a modern categorisation, so in one sense to describe any ancient people as White is anachronistic. Racial descriptions are also inherently flawed. There are probably more people in the world that don't fit into a White/Black/Asian/Native American box than those that do. And not even thinking of the vast mixed population of e.g Latín America and the Caribbean, are North Africans White? Iranians? Turks?

However, I guess you are asking something like whether they would largely have had straightish hair+palish to very pale skin+relatively narrow noses+ eyes without epicanthic folds. The answer is almost certainly that at least some of them would have.

According to Peter Heather it's best to see the 'barbarian' 'nations' of the 'migration period' (OMG thats a lot of scare quotes) as more like.... gangs? Sports teams? In that they had an identity, and a culture and probably usually a stable language or languages but membership was fairly porous, and would swell and decline based on success, picking up and sloughing off followers as they moved.

But if we are talking about the at most 15000 actual Huns- as in the horse-mounted warriors then... maybe? Heather claims that there is good reasons to suppose they spoke a Germanic language based on names, though there is little doubt that they were steppe-based nomads before relocating to the Hungarian Plain, and Gothic 'was one of the main languages of the Empire' by Atila's time. Heather's hypothesis is that the original Huns had picked up/assimilated Goths in the Black Sea regions generations before they came to Central Europe, and the reasons to suppose that Germanic speakers were actual horse-riding Huns, rather than Goths simply making up allied, subsumed or lower-caste/enslaved group with Hunnic society is that many leading figures under Atila have clearly Germanic or Germanic-influenced names. However, language, culture and phenotype are independent variables with weak mutual predictive power.

And the original, original Huns? I'll quotes Peter Heather:

'Our ignorance of the Huns is outstanding. It is not even clearly what language they spoke....and probably never will.... The direct evidence we have for the motivation and forms of Hunnic migration is equally limited'

The Huns at first mention were a nomadic group east of the Don; later they were a politically disagregated but significant raiding economy based on the fringes of the Roman Empire; under, or by the time of Atila they had become a politically unified, multi-lingual, multicultural conquest based Empire, where there was a degree of fluidity to individual identity, where a Greek dressed in Hunnish clothes could be a Hun, but one where being part of the Empire did not make you a Hun. Also one which shattered into apparently ethnic/tribal pieces after the death of its charimatic leader.

So almost certainly some of what their contemporaries would have described as Huns, at least in the later period, would have looked like what a 21st century American or Brit would describe as White.