Questions are growing over how the US military has described injuries suffered by American troops after an Iran-linked drone strike, with wounded soldiers and their families accusing the army of minimising the severity of what happened.The issue has also brought fresh attention to comments made in March 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 now say that description does not match what they were told or what soldiers are still dealing with.According to interviews given to CBS News, troops injured in a March 1 drone strike in Kuwait say their conditions were far worse.Chief warrant officer Rodney Bearman was working at Port of Shuaiba when a drone hit his station. Medical records seen by CBS News show he suffered shrapnel wounds across his body, concussion, hearing and vision loss, and lung damage. The army listed his condition as “not seriously injured”.“That assessment is unacceptable,” his wife, Amy Bearman, told CBS News.The strike killed six US soldiers and injured more than 20 others, making it one of the most serious incidents involving American troops in recent years. It also raised questions about readiness, after soldiers told CBS News they had warned about security and medical gaps before the attack.Amy Bearman said she was first informed by an official call from Fort Knox. She was told her husband’s injuries were classified as NSI, or “not seriously injured”, and that “He was treated and released back 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.But she later heard directly from her husband that the situation was more serious. Speaking from a hospital in Kuwait, he told her, “I’m going to be OK.” Then, after a pause, he added, “I can’t go back.”Sergeant First Class Cory Hicks, who was also injured in the same 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 said he believes the incident has been played down. The army rejects that claim.In a statement, an Army spokesperson said injury labels like “not seriously injured” follow strict medical definitions. “The care and well-being of our Soldiers is of the highest priority,” the army said. “Any assertion that the Army seeks to downplay a soldier’s injuries is simply not true.”The army said “seriously injured” or “very seriously injured” applies only when 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 about gaps in protection and medical support. CBS News earlier reported that a Senate Democrat has launched an inquiry into the matter.Bearman’s case has since drawn political attention. Senator Shelley Moore Capito wrote to the army seeking clarity on how his injuries were classified and what was told to his wife. Major General Michael J. Leeney later defended the designation, saying it did not reduce Bearman’s service or sacrifice.Nearly four months after the attack, Hicks remains in treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center with a serious brain injury and faces months more recovery.