Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard’s views on former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and his theft of more than a million classified documents mushroomed into a major point of contention with Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee Thursday.

Republican senators pressed Gabbard to declare Snowden a “traitor” and to acknowledge that he “harmed” U.S. national security, but Gabbard refused to do so, raising alarm among Republican who will be voting on her nomination in the weeks ahead.

“People are holding their cards pretty close to the vest but that nomination is in trouble,” said one Republican senator, who requested anonymity to comment candidly on Gabbard’s chances of getting through the Senate.

A second Republican senator said there’s been “a lot of discussion” among GOP lawmakers over Gabbard’s fitness to lead the nation’s intelligence community.

“There’s been a lot of conversation on that,” the senator said.

Gabbard, if confirmed, would serve as the nation’s leading intelligence official, and would be in charge of preparing President Trump’s daily intelligence brief.

A key moment during Thursday’s hearing came when Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) asked whether Gabbard views Snowden as a “traitor,” advising her that members of the Intelligence panel would feel a lot better about her nomination if she would do so.

Instead, Gabbard sidestepped two questions about whether Snowden betrayed the nation, telling lawmakers she is “focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again,” referring to Snowden’s theft of secret documents.

Lankford, who earlier this month said he would support Gabbard, said after the hearing that he was “surprised” by her response.

“I was surprised because that doesn’t seem like a hard question on that. It wasn’t intended to be a trick question by any means,” Lankford said.

The Oklahoma senator said it should have been an “easy question” to say it’s “universally accepted when you steal a million pages of top-secret documents and you hand it to the Russians, that’s a traitorous act.”

Gabbard appeared to rankle Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a key vote on the Intelligence panel who remains publicly undecided, when she refused to say that Snowden’s actions harmed national security.

“Do you have any response to the bipartisan findings of the House Intel Committee which stated that Snowden caused tremendous damage to national security, including to military, defense and intelligence programs of great interest to America’s adversaries?” Young asked.

Gabbard said Snowden “broke the law,” a phrase she repeated throughout Thursday’s hearing, but then quickly pivoted to talk about “my focus on the future.”

“I think we can all agree another Snowden-type leak, and I’ve laid out specific actions if confirmed as DNI to do that,” she said.

Young said it was “notable” that Gabbard didn’t acknowledge that Snowden hurt national intelligence.

And the Indiana senator pressed Gabbard about her past support for pardoning Snowden, including the introduction of legislation with former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) calling for charges against Snowden to be dropped.

“When we find Americans, whether private citizens or contractors or uniformed personnel, have shared sensitive designs about military technology or plans to a foreign government … we rightfully throw the book at them. Snowden did just that. Yet you have argued many times that he should be pardoned,” Young said, showing frustration with Gabbard’s answer.

“He likely endangered American lives through his action. As the leader of the intelligence community, how do you think you would be received on some of these past actions to support or even to pardon Snowden?” Young asked, wondering how rank-and-file intelligence analysts and professionals would react to her becoming the next director of national intelligence.

Young demanded to know if Snowden betrayed the trust of the American people, pointing out that’s the Miriam Webster dictionary’s definition of a traitor.

The Indiana senator declined to speak to the press after participating in a round of questions of Gabbard during the part of the confirmation hearing that was closed to the public.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), who was later briefed on the hearing, said he thought that Gabbard did pretty well, but he didn’t say whether he is confident about getting her through the Intelligence Committee or confirmed on the floor.

“I think most people were pleased with how it went,” he said.

But he acknowledged that Lankford and Young didn’t appeared happy with her answers on Snowden.

“Everybody is going to come to their own conclusions. There were issues she had to deal with and address. We’ll see how it goes,” he said.

Asked if he was confident about her confirmation, Thune said: “I’ve said before, give them a process, you see where it lands.”

The defection of a single GOP senator on the Intelligence panel, on which Republicans have a one-seat majority, would be enough to bottle up Gabbard’s nomination in committee.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who says he is inclined to vote for all of Trump’s Cabinet nominees absent extraordinary circumstances, gave Gabbard an “OK” grade on the hearing.

“Umm, I thought she did OK,” he said.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), another key vote on the Intelligence Committee who remains undecided on Gabbard, asked Gabbard pointedly whether she would support a pardon or any sort of clemency for Snowden.

She emphasized that Snowden had done “grave harm to our national security” by revealing sensitive sources and methods, jeopardizing agents in the field.

Gabbard responded that if confirmed that she would not advocate for any actions related to Snowden.

Collins later said she was “happy” with those answers.

“I was happy with her responses to my questions, including the question of whether she would recommend a pardon of Edward Snowden, where she clearly said no,” she said.

Collins told The Hill last week that she still had concerns about Gabbard’s stance on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Act, which authorizes expanded surveillance power and accounts for roughly 60 percent of the intelligence in the president’s daily briefing.

While some Republican senators on the panel thought that Gabbard had reversed her past opposition to Section 702’s expanded authorities, Collins felt the nominee had “hedged” her answers on the subject.

One Democratic senator with good relations with Republicans on the Intelligence panel said some of his GOP colleagues have significant trust issues with Gabbard

“If you’re on the Intelligence Committee and you have any respect for the Intelligence Committee, you’re a Republican, and you got someone in front of you who can’t denounce Snowden as being a traitor to the United States and who has actively campaigned against Section 702. … From the questions by Republicans, it’s clear that they’re afraid she can’t be trusted,” the lawmaker said.

Al Weaver contributed.