The fewer DGWs there are (or rather, the fewer investible DGW32/25 teams there are), the weaker just about any chip combination is in the later 31-35 period, so for sure recent events improve the relative prospects of FH25. The question really is how far behind that strategy potentially was already and how much of the gap this closes. As with every strategy choice, the answer will likely be different for every team.
It's fairly obvious that choosing to FH in DGW25 relies heavily on confidence in City players for their double. They are very likely to have blanks in both 27 and 31 (and in 33 after DGW32), so there are genuine reasons why a manager might be against keeping City assets much longer term - so for managers without many/any City assets right now I can see why it might be alluring to boomerang them in and out.
You can make a similar argument with Chelsea players since they play HUD in GW25 and would be likely targets in a FH. They too are likely to have 3 blanks in 7 gameweeks from GW27 onwards so are unlikely to be excellent long term investments.
What's worth noting though, is that Everton will have one blank at most in 31/33, possibly none (depending on Chelsea's cup fate). So the same argument is not true of their doubler players (and WOL, MCI isn't amazing for an Everton team out of form).
If Chelsea had gotten a double too (especially given it would have been HUD, BHA) then there'd have been a reasonably strong argument for FH25 I think. But with the rotation risk on certain City players (given it's CHE up in GW26) it's still potentially a struggle to see how it would maximise a FH's utility.
One of the biggest arguments one might still have against FH25 is the argument for the alternatives: the proximity to the surrounding blanks make GW32 such a huge candidate for FH because similar players are likely to be desirable in GW31 and 33 (and a disjoint set of players to those desirable in GW32). Picking players while ignoring DGW32 in the run-up and you'll potentially be able to get 2 extra fixtures from non-blankers over the spell (and/or save a lot of transfers) should you FH32. If instead the WC is played in GW32 (with a view to picking double-doublers for 32 & 35) then the blanks in GW33 will potentially represent a big hit - so that loss is what really needs to be weighed against FH25's gains I think.
Of course, there's a similar issue with GW25 doublers not being available in GW27, but we've all got two gameweeks and two transfers (+1 if saved) to fix that, and only two team's worth of players to get rid of.
So, the arguments are still roughly the same each way I think. Only that the relative strength of the argument for a later FH is slightly reduced due to the smaller pool of DGW32/35 players and the slightly reduced severity of the surrounding blanks blanks.