Repunits are numbers whose digits are all $1$. In general, finding the full prime factorization of a repunit is nontrivial.
Sequence A067063 in the OEIS gives the smallest prime factor of repunits. There are no $7$'s (just the number $7$, not as a digit in a different prime) that I can see in the sequence.
$7$ does divide many repunits, but always does when $3$ is also a factor, so $7$ never shows up as the smallest prime factor. The table of the first $508$ smallest prime factors of repunits shows that $7$ is not the smallest prime factor of any of those repunits.
My question is can $7$ ever be the smallest prime factor of a repunit?
I tried to find a repunit with $7$ as the smallest factor but searched very far and $3$ is always a factor whenever $7$ is.
I tried to prove that it can't be but I have no idea how.
No, it cannot.
The main idea is as follows: If the $n^\text{th}$ repunit $R(n)$ is divisible by $7$, then $n$ is divisible by $6$, which means $n$ is divisible by $3$, which means $R(n)$ is divisible by $3$, so $7$ cannot be the smallest prime factor.
The full argument is fleshed out below.
Let $R(n)$ be the $n^\text{th}$ repunit, e.g. $R(4) = 1111$.
One interesting property about repunits is that if an integer $m$ divides $R(n)$, then $m$ divides $R(2n)$, and $m$ divides $R(3n)$, and so on. This is because, for any positive integer $n$, we have the factorization $$R(2n) = \left(10^{n}+1\right)R(n)$$ and, more generally, for any positive integers $k$ and $n$, we can factor as follows:
$$R(kn) = \left(\displaystyle\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-1} 10^{jn}\right)R(n)$$
What this means, for your problem, is if a prime $p$ divides a repunit $R(n)$, then it will also divide $R(kn)$ for all $k$.
This tells us that:
Every other repunit is divisible by $11$. $$11 \,|\, R(2) \implies\,\Big(\,\,\,n \equiv 0 \pmod{2} \iff 11 \,|\, R(n) \,\,\,\Big)$$ Here, the "$\iff$" bidirectionality follows from the fact that $11 \not| \,\,R(1)$.
Every third repunit is divisible by $3$. $$3 \,|\, R(3) \implies \,\Big(\,\,\,n \equiv 0 \pmod{3} \iff 3 \, |\, R(n) \,\,\,\Big)$$ Here, the "$\iff$" bidirectionality follows from the fact that $3 \not| \,\,R(1)$ and $3 \not| \,\,R(2)$.
Every third repunit is divisible by $37$. $$37 \,|\, R(3) \implies \,\Big(\,\,\,n \equiv 0 \pmod{3} \iff 37 \, |\, R(n) \,\,\,\Big)$$ Here, the "$\iff$" bidirectionality follows from the fact that $37 \not| \,\,R(1)$ and $37 \not| \,\,R(2)$.
Every sixth repunit is divisible by $13$.$$13 \,|\, R(6) \implies \,\Big(\,\,\,n \equiv 0 \pmod{6} \iff 13 \, |\, R(n) \,\,\,\Big)$$ Here, the fact that each of $1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111$ are not divisible by $13$ implies the "$\iff$" bidirectionality.
Every sixth repunit is divisible by $7$.$$7 \,|\, R(6) \implies \,\Big(\,\,\,n \equiv 0 \pmod{6} \iff 7 \, |\, R(n) \,\,\,\Big)$$ Here, the fact that each of $1, 11, 111, 1111, 11111$ are not divisible by $7$ implies the "$\iff$" bidirectionality.
This last fact implies that $7$ can never be the smallest prime factor of a repunit, because whenever $n \equiv 0 \pmod{6}$, it's also true that $n \equiv 0 \pmod{3}$, so whenever $7$ is a factor of a repunit, $3$ will be as well.
By a similar argument, $13$ and $37$ also cannot be the smallest prime factor of a repunit.