How do emotions shape policy views? Combining the full record of congressional floor speeches since the 1870s with tweets from members of Congress and voters matched to electoral registries, campaign speeches, and political Reddit comments (2013–2025), we show that anger in U.S. political discourse has surged among both policymakers and citizens, reaching its highest level in a century and a half. Among voters, the share of policy-related sentences expressing anger rises from about 32% to more than 46%, and angry tweets receive 59% more retweets among members of Congress and 63% more among voters than non-emotional ones. Two experiments then show that negative emotions increase support for protectionism, restrictive immigration policies, and redistribution, while positive emotions mainly improve perceptions and reduce populist inclinations. Distinguishing fear from anger, we find that anger shifts climate policy attitudes whereas fear has no detectable effect. A model in which emotions direct attention toward specific features of policy problems rationalizes these patterns. The emotional register of political discourse thus shapes both engagement and the substance of policy views.