It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious political environment. I expect that any WMF official responsible for this report will acknowledge this is true, as there appears to be no way to honestly claim otherwise. In that case I hope they can provide a well reasoned and passionate defense of this decision and why the WMF should continue in this vein.