What medical and fire department records are available about the children hospitalized after the Minneapolis protest clashes?

1. What the hospitals have publicly produced: aggregated clinical studies and settlements

The clearest medical documentation available in the public record comes in two forms: an academic, retrospective analysis of patients treated for less‑lethal‑weapon injuries across two large Minnesota hospital systems, which identified 89 patients evaluated over a defined period and categorized injuries by mechanism (projectiles, chemical irritants, or both) but reports results in aggregate and does not publish individual pediatric charts ^[2], and municipal legal settlements and reporting that document that dozens sought urgent care during the May–June 2020 unrest without releasing individual medical records ^{[3] [4]}.

2. What local officials and news outlets say about children hospitalized

Contemporary reporting from Newsweek, citing the City of Minneapolis Office of Community Safety, reported that two children—including a six‑month‑old infant—were hospitalized after federal agents used tear gas during protests in Minneapolis ^[1], a claim echoed in several mainstream accounts of clashes between residents and federal agents ^{[5] [6]}. Those news accounts rely on city summaries and emergency‑operations statements rather than publication of redacted medical charts, and they do not point to public fire‑department patient care reports tied to those individual children ^{[1] [6]}.

3. What academic and municipal reviews do—and do not—provide

The New England Journal of Medicine study provides methodical hospital‑system surveillance of protest‑related injuries, identifying numbers, mechanisms, and injury types among 89 patients seen between May 26 and June 15, 2020, but it is explicitly a retrospective, de‑identified analysis of electronic medical records using diagnosis codes and keyword searches and therefore does not release identifiable pediatric medical records or fire‑department run sheets ^[2]. The City of Minneapolis “After‑Action” review and other municipal documents summarize operational lessons and note trauma and service burdens during unrest, but those reports do not publish individual medical or fire‑department treatment logs for minors ^[7].

4. What’s missing from the public record and why that matters

Neither the academic literature nor the municipal releases available in the provided reporting include full public disclosure of individual pediatric hospital charts or Minneapolis Fire Department emergency‑medical‑service (EMS) patient care reports tied to the children Newsweek referenced, and the sources do not cite a released packet of 911/EMS or hospital records for those specific infants or children ^{[2] [1] [7]}. Patient privacy laws and routine medical‑record protections likely limit how much identifiable clinical documentation is published, and the academic approach was to report aggregate injures rather than case‑level redactions ^[2].

5. Conflicting narratives, implicit agendas, and next steps for verification

News outlets and municipal actors offer competing frames—city safety offices and local officials emphasize documented hospitalizations ^[1], while federal agencies and law‑enforcement statements focus on self‑defense and operational necessity ^{[5] [6]}—creating incentives for rapid public claims without release of underlying run sheets or charts; independent researchers turned to de‑identified hospital data ^[2] while litigants and advocacy groups have sought internal MPD and city records with varying success ^{[8] [4]}. To move past competing claims, journalists and researchers will need either legally obtained redacted EMS and hospital records (through public‑records requests or litigation) or independent clinical summaries released by treating hospitals that balance patient privacy with public transparency; none of those specific documents for the children in question appear in the reporting provided here ^{[2] [1] [7]}.