Questions are growing over how the US military has described injuries suffered by American troops following an Iran-linked drone strike, with wounded soldiers and their families accusing the army of minimising the severity of the incident.
The controversy has also renewed scrutiny of comments made by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said that “almost 90%” of around 400 injured US service members had only minor injuries and had returned to duty. Some families say that assessment does not reflect what they were told or what many soldiers continue to endure.
According to interviews with injured troops, soldiers wounded in a March 1 drone strike in Kuwait say their conditions were far more serious than officially described.
Chief Warrant Officer Rodney Bearman was working at Port of Shuaiba when a drone struck his position. Medical records show he suffered shrapnel wounds across his body, a concussion, hearing and vision loss, and lung damage. Despite the extent of his injuries, the army classified his condition as “not seriously injured.”
“That assessment is unacceptable,” his wife, Amy Bearman, said.
The attack killed six US soldiers and injured more than 20 others, making it one of the deadliest incidents involving American troops in recent years. It also raised concerns about military preparedness after soldiers claimed they had warned about security and medical shortcomings before the strike.
Amy Bearman said she initially received an official call from Fort Knox informing her that her husband’s injuries had been classified as NSI, or “not seriously injured,” and that he had been treated and returned to duty.
“From being a military spouse for the last almost 25 years, I knew that if anything ever happened to my husband while he was serving, I knew I would receive either an official phone call or an official visit,” she said.
However, she later spoke directly with her husband while he was in a hospital in Kuwait. He reassured her by saying, “I’m going to be OK.” After a pause, he added, “I can’t go back.”
Sergeant First Class Cory Hicks, who was also injured in the strike, said he was told his injuries were minor despite undergoing multiple surgeries for shrapnel wounds.
“They said your husband was injured, he has a minor jaw injury, and he’s going to be returned to duty,” Hicks recalled.
He believes the seriousness of the incident has been understated, a claim the army rejects.
In a statement, an Army spokesperson said injury classifications such as “not seriously injured” follow strict medical definitions.
“The care and well-being of our Soldiers is of the highest priority,” the statement said. “Any assertion that the Army seeks to downplay a soldier’s injuries is simply not true.”
The army added that the classifications “seriously injured” and “very seriously injured” are reserved for cases where there is a risk of death within 72 hours.
Families and survivors have also raised concerns about conditions before the strike, including claims that troops had warned commanders about shortcomings in protection and medical support. The issue has since prompted a Senate inquiry.
Bearman’s case has drawn political attention, with Senator Shelley Moore Capito requesting clarification from the army on how his injuries were classified and what information was provided to his wife. Major General Michael J. Leeney defended the designation, saying it did not diminish Bearman’s service or sacrifice.
Hicks continues to receive treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for a serious brain injury and is expected to require several more months of recovery.
