As of late 2025, only three states, Oregon, Washington, and California, plus Washington, D.C., had statewide rent control policies in effect, according to National Apartment Association tracking. But legislative interest is far broader than actual enactment: the NAA was tracking 131 active state-level rent control bills nationally in 2025, plus roughly 40 additional bills that had already failed (many of which are typically reintroduced in subsequent sessions), and 9 additional local ordinances.
Washington became the most recent state to enact statewide rent control, effective May 7, 2025, capping annual increases at 7% plus the change in the Consumer Price Index, or 10%, whichever is lower, while also banning rent increases during a lease's first year. Massachusetts, notably, banned rent control statewide via ballot measure back in 1994, but a new statewide rent control ballot question was cleared to appear on the November 2026 ballot, showing even historically rent-control-skeptical states are re-litigating the question.
A comprehensive literature review compiled by the D.C. Policy Center, drawing on decades of empirical research, finds a consistent pattern across studies: rent control tends to reduce mobility (people stay in controlled units longer, sometimes because leaving means losing below-market rent), and evidence on housing quality and maintenance is mixed but frequently shows some decline in landlord-funded upkeep in controlled units specifically.
A 2025 empirical study of Catalonia's rent control policy in Spain, using difference-in-differences analysis of actual administrative rental data, found a measurable reduction in new tenancy agreements alongside a less robust decrease in rental price growth, a combination the study's author specifically flags as an important short-term finding, while cautioning that data limitations mean some estimates aren't fully robust.
Even as rent control legislative activity surges in many states, some jurisdictions are moving the opposite direction. Nebraska passed a bill in April 2025 specifically preempting (blocking) local governments from enacting their own rent control ordinances, joining a number of states that have taken this preemptive approach specifically to prevent the policy from spreading at the city level even where state legislatures themselves haven't adopted it.
Rent control supporters generally argue it provides essential, immediate protection for existing tenants, particularly moderate-income and elderly renters, against sudden, unaffordable rent increases in tight housing markets, and argue the policy addresses a genuine, urgent affordability crisis that longer-term supply-side fixes don't solve quickly enough. Critics, including the substantial majority of economists surveyed on this question historically, generally argue that price caps on rent reduce the incentive to build and maintain rental housing over time, ultimately worsening the underlying supply shortage that drives high rents in the first place, and point to the empirical literature's consistent findings on reduced mobility and maintenance as evidence of real, if debated, downsides. Both sides broadly agree the underlying problem, insufficient affordable housing supply relative to demand in many major markets, is real; the genuine disagreement is whether capping rents helps address that problem or makes it structurally worse over time.
Want the core arguments from both sides, side by side?
See the Left vs. Right Breakdown on Rent Control →