The point about avoiding legal action is a risk that has to be weighed against the reward. And if you wrote the article, carefully quantifying the risks and associated costs. Would be a much higher degree of difficulty to argue against. Also would leave the impression that you'd make a great Project Manager.

However that is just not PSF argument nor position.

The PR articles make exactly two points:

1. PSF leadership supports DEI
2. the claw back risk is scary

Have already addressed both issues the PSF has with moving forward and accepting funding.

PSF can drop their DEI religious tenant, which is not virtuous, or continue to not be funded.

Eventually the emperor has no clothes, would become obvious to all, that the current PSF leadership stance causes unfortunate and completely avoidable consequences.

There is another unstated risk, explained best by Donald Rumsfield, the unknown unknowns. The west is at war with Russia. During wartime, govts can do unspeakable things. By being funded by govt, that squarely puts team PSF within the Wests or NATOs good graces. PSF is betting the eye of Sauron never comes their way. So accepting funding can be a positive risk with an associated absolutely huge opportunity reward. Not just the $1.5M, but US govt tends to throw money at problems especially during wartime. If US govt sees Python as a strategic resource, we might look back at that small $1.5M with nostalgia.