Which Republican House members faced the most anti-RINO campaigns by conservative groups in 2025?

1. Tom Emmer: the national lightning rod

Tom Emmer’s post‑Speaker‑vote humiliation became a focal point for anti‑RINO branding in 2025 when, according to contemporaneous reporting, President Trump publicly blasted him as a RINO and Emmer withdrew his nomination four hours after a failed vote — an episode repeatedly cited as emblematic of the era’s intra‑party purges ^[1]. That high‑profile sequence gave conservative groups and pro‑MAGA influencers a ready narrative to amplify, making Emmer the most visible House member publicly labeled and attacked as a RINO in major national coverage of 2025 ^[1].

2. The groups fueling anti‑RINO pressure: national and niche players

Longstanding conservative organizations — the Club for Growth among them — have maintained “RINO watch” lists and targeted Republicans judged insufficiently conservative, a playbook revived and expanded during the MAGA ascendancy in 2025 ^[1]. Newer and hyper‑partisan projects like RINOWatch.com operated as public catalogues of targets and talking points through 2025, while numerous state or issue‑specific sites (for example WyoRINO) continued to produce local scorecards and “RINO of the month” features that sustain primary‑challenge pressure ^{[2] [3]}.

3. State and local House Republicans: diffuse, persistent targeting

At the state and local level the anti‑RINO fight was widespread and often more consequential for individual lawmakers than national invective: Oregon state Representative Cyrus Javadi faced recall petitions and sustained online attacks after votes that conservatives judged insufficiently loyal, a pattern mirrored across multiple states where local “RINO” outfits publish scorecards and drive recall or primary threat narratives ^{[4] [3]}. Reporting shows the movement’s energy is often spent on state legislators and low‑profile House members, which fragments the targets and complicates claims about who “faced the most” anti‑RINO activity ^{[4] [3]}.

4. The ideology and incentives behind anti‑RINO campaigns

Conservative and extremist commentators treat “RINO” as both an ideological purity test and a political strategy: sources characterise the term’s use as meant to weed out moderates, enforce orthodoxy, and boost primary challenges in service of winning conservative primaries and legislative control ^[5]. That motive structure explains why some organizations concentrate on very public House figures while others deploy resources at the district and state level where they can influence nominations more cheaply and directly ^{[5] [2]}.

5. Why it’s impossible to produce a neat ranked list from available reporting

Existing reporting and archival sources document prominent episodes, organizational activity, and many localized campaigns in 2025, but do not publish a consolidated metric — number of ads, dollars spent, primary challenges launched — ranking House members by anti‑RINO aggression endured ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Absent comprehensive data from conservative PACs, social‑media ad files, and state‑level recall filings, any claim to name the handful of House members who “faced the most” anti‑RINO campaigns beyond identified high‑visibility cases like Emmer would exceed what the cited sources support ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

6. Bottom line

For 2025, the strongest evidence in the record places Tom Emmer at the center of the year’s highest‑profile anti‑RINO assault after the Speaker nomination drama ^[1]; a second tier of targets exists largely at the state and district level — exemplified by cases such as Cyrus Javadi in Oregon — driven by an ecosystem of national groups and local RINO scorecards ^{[4] [2] [3]}. Journalistic and scholarly clarity on a ranked “most targeted” list would require consolidated ad‑spend, PAC activity and primary/challenge tracking that the available reporting does not presently provide ^{[2] [1]}.