Bangladesh has authorized government-funded pay and allowances for an official visit connected with Khalilur Rahman’s United Nations General Assembly presidency and has pledged US$200,000 to support the president’s office. A July ministry order and the UN’s published funding register document those separate commitments.
Neither record establishes his annual personal salary or the complete cost of his presidency. The distinction matters: remuneration for an individual, an office’s operating budget and donations pledged to a pooled fund are not interchangeable figures.
Rahman was elected president of the General Assembly’s 81st session on June 2, 2026. This report examines the financial records supporting that office, rather than treating the presidency as an ordinary UN staff appointment.
Who pays Khalilur Rahman’s salary?
A June 3 report credited to Banglanews24 and republished by BD Today explained that the General Assembly president is not a UN employee receiving a UN salary. It described personal pay and accommodation as responsibilities normally supported by the president’s home country. That general arrangement does not establish Rahman’s individual financial terms.
The person-specific evidence is a Ministry of Foreign Affairs order dated July 8, 2026, authorizing his visit to New York from July 10 to 29 in connection with the presidency. The order states: “He will draw his pay and allowances from Bangladesh in local currency as per existing Government Rules.”
It directs that relevant expenses and allowances for that visit be met from the ministry’s 2026–27 allocation. However, it gives no monetary amount. It is an authorization for a particular trip, not a full-term remuneration package or a statement of payments actually made.
Liberty Journal did not establish an appointment-specific monthly salary, annual allowance total or accommodation cost from the records reviewed. Applying a standard UN staff salary scale, or another president’s remuneration, would not fill that gap.
The UN lists US$1,288,237 in office pledges
The 81st-session trust-fund page lists US$1,288,237 pledged by ten member states, as of September 10, 2026. The date belongs to the published register; it is not a September 27 expenditure statement.
The listed government pledges, in US dollars, are:
- Azerbaijan: $50,000
- Bangladesh: $200,000
- China: $500,000
- Dominican Republic: $9,975
- Ireland: $115,000
- Italy: $23,262
- Kuwait: $150,000
- Qatar: $100,000
- Saudi Arabia: $80,000
- Türkiye: $60,000
Bangladesh’s $200,000 is already included in the $1,288,237 total. Adding it again would double-count the same pledge.
These are commitments to support the office, not payments to Rahman personally. The register does not, by itself, show that every pledge has been received or spent.
Who covers travel, staffing and other expenses?
The UN describes the trust fund as supplementing its regular-budget resources. It identifies consultations, representation and outreach, the internship programme, and meetings supporting the session’s priorities among the activities supported.
The funding picture therefore has distinct parts: national support documented in Bangladesh’s travel order; resources provided through the UN’s regular budget; and voluntary pledges to the office’s trust fund. Those sources should not be combined into a supposed personal salary.
Nor is the pledge total a complete office budget. The public records reviewed do not provide a consolidated ledger allocating every housing, staff, travel, insurance or other operating expense to a particular payer. An expense authorization identifies an approved funding route; invoices, payment records and accounts are needed to establish the amount ultimately spent.
Why the reported Tk60 crore figure is not his salary
The June 3 report quoted an unnamed Foreign Ministry official discussing possible presidency costs and gave an approximate range of Tk12–60 crore. It said the division between Bangladesh’s support and international funding had not been finalized at that time. Officials presented the spending as potentially supporting diplomatic and development objectives.
That was a prospective estimate reported before the term, not an approved expenditure statement. Liberty Journal has not independently established its underlying calculations. It cannot substantiate a claim that Rahman receives Tk60 crore, that this amount has been spent, or that Bangladesh alone will bear the entire cost.
What would establish the full cost?
A reliable total would require records covering the same period and the same expenses: the full-term pay and allowance authorization, Bangladesh’s relevant approved allocations and actual expenditure, the UN regular-budget resources assigned to the office, and trust-fund receipts and disbursements.
Those accounts would also need to distinguish cash contributions from other support and identify transfers between funding sources. Otherwise, the same money could be counted once as a national contribution and again as trust-fund spending. A pledged amount would need to remain separate from money received, committed or paid out.
The General Assembly president’s code of ethics provides a transparency standard for the use of office property, premises, services and resources, and requires their use for official business. It also expressly permits government secondments. The existence of national or donor support is therefore not, by itself, evidence of misconduct.
The documents reviewed establish government-authorized support for the July visit and a dated register of office pledges. They do not establish a complete annual salary or final expenses bill. That is a limit of the available evidence, not a finding that no further accounts exist or that funds have been misused.
Sources and scope: Liberty Journal reviewed the linked public documents on September 27, 2026. The government order was read in full and visually checked; its unrelated personal identifier is not reproduced. The June cost range is attributed secondary reporting, while the election, pledge register and ethics provisions come from UN records. No confidential payroll files or consolidated expenditure accounts were obtained.