logo
Revealed: The extensive perks UN officials receive amid budget crisis

Revealed: The extensive perks UN officials receive amid budget crisis

Yahooa day ago

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has directed staff to slash budgets ahead of the 2026 budgetary vote as part of a wider reform effort through his UN80 Initiative.
Much of the belt-tightening comes at a time when the Trump administration has looked to save money with the help of DOGE. In March, Guterres warned about cuts to U.S. spending at the U.N., stating that "going through with recent funding cuts will make the world less healthy, less safe, and less prosperous." The U.S., as the top funder to the world body, has given billions over the last few years, while paying around a third of its budget.
However, organizational belt-tightening does not appear to have hit senior-level U.N. staff.
"The American people don't even see this," a diplomatic source told Fox News Digital. "These people that are appointed to care for the poor of the world, get better perks than any investment banks out there."
Trump Does Un's Job On World Stage, Leads On Peace While Secretary-general Earns More At Anti-us Body
The diplomatic insider told Fox News Digital that the current "zero-growth" budget for 2026 still includes "a lot of perks" for professional- and director-level U.N. staff along with assistant-secretaries, under-secretaries and the secretary-general.
Read On The Fox News App
Fox News Digital recently reported that Guterres earned $418,348, which is a higher base salary than President Donald Trump receives. And that doesn't include some of the perks the U.N. chief gets, including a plush Manhattan residence and chauffeur-driven car.
Additionally, though U.N. documents say senior-level U.N. staff are "going to be the first thing to be reduced," the source says that "in the budget of 2026, none of that is touched."
Here is a list of perks:
U.N. professional staff, including Guterres, are paid a general salary as well as an additional multiplier of their salary based on their post. Multipliers are meant to "preserve equivalent purchasing power for all duty stations" and can range from 16% in Eswatini, Africa, to 86.8% in Switzerland, according to data provided to Fox News Digital by a U.N. source.
The U.N. pay scale has been set to compare with "equivalently graded jobs in the comparator civil service in Washington, D.C.," with compensation about "10 to 20% ahead of the comparator service" to "attract and retain staff from all countries, including the comparator."
Former Trump Official Slams Un Reform Efforts As 'Eight And A Half Years Late'
Other expenses that may be compensated for include taxes paid and housing costs.
U.N. staff's rent may be subsidized by up to 40% if it "exceeds a so-called rent threshold" based on an employee's income.
Many member states exempt U.N. employees from paying taxes, but employees of the organization who must pay taxes at their duty station are reimbursed for the cost.
There are substantial benefits for staff with dependents.
Staff receive an allowance of 6% of their net income if their spouses earn less than an entry-level general service U.N. salary.
Staff who are parents receive a flat allowance of $2,929 for children under 18, or who are under 21 and in secondary schooling. A second child allowance for staff without spouses is set at $1,025.
U.N. employees may receive grants to cover a portion of the education costs for dependent children through up to four years of post-secondary education. Reimbursements are calculated on a sliding scale. In a sample calculation, the U.N. explains that it would reimburse $34,845 of a $47,000 tuition.
Boarding fees may also be reimbursed up to $5,300 during primary and secondary education.
U.N. staff have access to the U.N. joint staff pension fund, which allows employees to contribute 23.7% of "pensionable remuneration, with two-thirds paid by the organization and one-third by the staff member."
The U.N. pays travel expenses for staff "on initial appointment, on change of duty station, on separation from service, for travel on official business, for home leave travel, and on travel to visit family members." In some instances, the U.N. also pays for eligible spouses and dependent children to travel.
Travel expenses include a "daily subsistence allowance (DSA)" meant to cover "the average cost of lodging and other expenses." Eligible family members receive half the DSA, while director-level staff and above receive an additional DSA supplement.
Trump Admin Stands By Israel, Rejects Un Resolution Backed By Uk And France
For staff who change assignments at certain duty stations, U.N. mobility incentives begin at $6,700 and can grow to more than $15,075.
If changing stations for an assignment lasting more than a year, settling-in benefits comprise 30 days' DSA for staff and half-DSA for eligible families, as well as one month of net pay and one month of post adjustment at the assignment duty station. Moving expenses may include the full or partial removal and transport of household goods, or the storage of those items.
Hardship allowances of between $5,930 and $23,720 may be granted for non-local staff in certain duty stations. The U.N. issues allowances of $19,800 for staff with dependents and $7,500 for staff without dependents stationed at non-family duty stations "to recognize the increased level of financial and psychological hardship incurred by involuntary separation." Danger pay of $1,645 may also be allocated to staff whose association or employment may make them "clearly, persistently, and directly targeted," or in duty stations where there is a "high risk of becoming collateral damage in a war or active armed conflict."
Terminated employees are also allowed separation payments, typically constituting several months' pay if their appointment has been terminated due to "abolition of post or reduction of staff; poor health or incapacitation for further service; unsatisfactory service; agreed termination." Those terminated for unsatisfactory service or misconduct may receive half the typical separation payment.
A repatriation grant may additionally be paid to staff who have been in expatriate service for at least five years, unless staff were "summarily dismissed."
In response to questions about Fox News Digital's source's statements about U.N. employee compensation being on par with that of an investment banker, Guterres' spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the assertion was "ludicrous" and "demonstrates an ignorance of both the United Nations and the investment banking worlds."
Dujarric did not deny that the 2026 budget proposal includes no cutting of senior personnel or benefits. "The budget proposal for 2026 was prepared before the launch of the UN80 initiative," he said. "We are currently working on identifying efficiencies, including reductions in post, and a revised proposal will be submitted to the General Assembly in the Fall for its deliberations, which usually take place between October and December."
Dujarric added that the International Civil Service Commission, an independent group of 15 expert appointees which creates the system of salaries, benefits and allowances for the U.N., is "undertaking a comprehensive review of the compensation package for the international Professional and higher category of staff," with the results due for presentation in 2026.
"The secretary-general has no authority of the decisions of the ICSC or the appointment of its members," he said.Original article source: Revealed: The extensive perks UN officials receive amid budget crisis

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The most surprising victim of Trump's terrible tax agenda
The most surprising victim of Trump's terrible tax agenda

Yahoo

time9 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The most surprising victim of Trump's terrible tax agenda

The Republican Party's saving grace is supposed to be its commitment to economic growth and consumer abundance. Sure, the GOP may see unemployed cancer patients as shiftless mooches — and the Lorax as literature's greatest villain — but for precisely those reasons, Republicans are allegedly able stewards of industrial development: Unconstrained by concerns about inequality, the environment, or social justice, the GOP will unleash the private sector's productive potential. Republicans won't balance Americans' hunger for cheap gasoline against their enlightened interest in cleaner air or a cooler planet — they'll get you the cheap fuel now. And they won't weigh America's stake in technological supremacy against the risks of unregulated innovation — they'll give cutting-edge companies whatever they need to achieve global dominance. At least, this is the impression that Republicans have tried to cultivate, and which voters largely bought last November. According to polling by Democratic data firm Blue Rose Research, Americans in 2024 believed that the GOP would be better than Democrats on the economy and cost of living — but worse on income inequality and the environment — and considered the former issues more important. But the GOP's priorities aren't as advertised. President Donald Trump's agenda does not ask Americans to accept a dirtier atmosphere and more inegalitarian social order in exchange for cheaper goods, faster technological progress, and national industrial dominance. Rather, it asks us to accept not only greater inequality and environmental degradation, but also, higher prices, slower technological progress, and worse industrial performance for the sake of…I'm not sure what. Perhaps the conservative movement's cultural grievances? Or Trump's odd ideological fixations? In any case, Trump has long made his disregard for affordability and economic growth plain. As of mid-June, Trump's tariffs were still poised to increase Americans' annual cost of living by $2,000 on average, while knocking 0.6 percent off of economic growth. His administration's assault on funding for scientific research, meanwhile, has undermined US tech companies. And his crackdown on immigration is both chasing top-tier talent out of the US and exacerbating labor shortages in the construction industry, thereby slowing the pace of housing and infrastructure development. Now, with his inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) — which is poised to clear the Senate this week — Trump is rounding out his 'worst of both worlds' agenda. Predictably, his tax cut package would exacerbate inequality, taking health care and food assistance away from poor people in order to shower tax breaks on the wealthy. And the legislation also evinces contempt for the environment, offering new subsidies to American coal producers. More remarkably, however, BBB would also increase electricity prices for consumers while undermining America's competitiveness in a range of critical sectors. Specifically, the latest version of Trump's bill aims to throttle the production of renewable energy in the US. The legislation not only phases out federal subsidies for wind and solar power by 2027, but also imposes a new excise tax on renewable projects that use inputs made in China. Since Chinese firms dominate green energy supply chains, a very high percentage of all wind and solar development in the United States would be adversely impacted by the tax. What's more, Trump's legislation would actually reinforce American green energy companies' dependence on Chinese suppliers by curtailing subsidies to domestic manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. (As of this writing, some Republican senators are pushing an amendment that would strike the excise tax from the bill. But that amendment's fate is unclear. And even if it is adopted, Trump's legislation would still curtail subsidies to the solar and wind industries.) Taken together, these measures could slash the amount of new clean energy capacity added to America's grid over the next 10 years by more than 72 percent, according to an analysis from the Rhodium Group. That scarcity will translate into higher electricity costs for consumers. According to a variety of recent studies, merely ending federal tax credits for wind and solar could push up the average family's energy bill by as much as $400 per year within a decade. While increasing US households' costs, Trump's bill also reduces American firms' competitiveness in some of the world's fastest-growing industries. On one level, this is obvious. Renewables accounted for more than 90 percent of all newly added electricity generation last year. Even if America clings tightly to fossil fuels, demand for wind and solar energy is going to surge worldwide in the coming decades. If the United States actively sabotages its clean power industry, it will cede a larger share of the global energy market to China and other rival nations. Less intuitively, the BBB also undermines America's artificial intelligence industry. AI companies need vast amounts of new electricity to power their data centers. And renewables are uniquely well-suited to provide such power. At present, utilities can build wind and solar much faster than new natural gas plants, as there is a years-long backlog in the global market for natural gas turbines. Likewise, nuclear energy takes an enormous amount of time and regulatory wrangling to expand. Thus, if the federal government makes building renewables slower and more expensive, then American AI firms' progress could also be stymied. This has led some in the tech industry to criticize the bill. 'We urge the Senate to prioritize a reliable and resilient energy mix that advances AI innovation and growth and reject provisions that will harm the U.S.'s ability to compete in the global race for AI and energy dominance,' Janae Washington, a spokesperson for the Information Technology Industry Council, told the Washington Post on Sunday. Elon Musk, meanwhile, declared Saturday that 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Even one of the bill's strongest proponents — the pro-fossil fuels advocate Alex Epstein — has lamented its new tax on renewables with Chinese inputs, as has the US Chamber of Commerce. Nevertheless, as of this writing, that tax remains in the legislation. It is therefore a mistake to see Trump's agenda as prioritizing innovation over equality or affordability over the environment. The BBB doesn't concentrate wealth or degrade the climate in pursuit of some higher objective. Rather, it treats increasing inequality and boosting carbon emissions as ends in themselves — goals that it is prepared to pursue even at great cost to America industrial competitiveness and living standards.

U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether shutting down Michigan pipeline is a state or federal case
U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether shutting down Michigan pipeline is a state or federal case

CBS News

time9 minutes ago

  • CBS News

U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether shutting down Michigan pipeline is a state or federal case

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will review whether Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's lawsuit seeking to shut down a section of an aging pipeline beneath a Great Lakes channel belongs in state court. Nessel sued in state court in June 2019 seeking to void the easement that allows the Enbridge Energy Company to operate a 4.5-mile (6.4-kilometer) section of pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, which link Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. She won a restraining order shutting down the pipeline from Ingham County Judge James Jamo in June 2020, although Enbridge was allowed to continue operations after meeting safety requirements. The company moved the lawsuit into federal court in 2021, arguing it affects U.S. and Canadian trade. But a three-judge panel from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to Jamo in June 2024, finding that Enbridge missed a 30-day deadline to change jurisdictions. On Monday, the Supreme Court did not explain its rationale for taking up the matter. Enbridge officials said in a statement that they were encouraged by the Supreme Court's choice, noting that exceptions to the 30-day deadline exist. Nessel spokesperson Kimberly Bush said the lawsuit belongs in a Michigan court. The attorney general's lawyers have argued that the case invokes the public trust doctrine, a concept in state law holding that natural resources belong to the public. The pipeline at issue, Line 5, has moved crude oil and natural gas liquids between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario, since 1953. Concerns over the section beneath the straits rupturing and causing a catastrophic spill have been growing since 2017, when Enbridge engineers revealed they had known about gaps in the section's protective coating since 2014. A boat anchor damaged the section in 2018, intensifying fears of a spill. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources under Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer revoked the straits easement for Line 5 in 2020. Enbridge has filed a separate federal lawsuit challenging the revocation. The company is seeking permits to encase the section of pipeline beneath the straits in a protective tunnel. The Michigan Public Service Commission granted the relevant permits in 2023, but Enbridge still needs approval from from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. The pipeline is at the center of a legal dispute in Wisconsin as well. A federal judge in Madison last summer gave Enbridge three years to shut down part of Line 5 that runs across the Bad River Band of Lake Superior's reservation. The company has proposed rerouting the pipeline around the reservation and has appealed the shutdown order to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store