I'm confused how Elon Musk, from Africa has any control in our government.
He was appointed to be on a presidential taskforce (advisory committee).
Taskforce members (even regular civilians) get "outsized" influence over policy making despite not being directly elected.
Some other notable examples:
Obama's task force on policing. (there were community activists, who were most certainly not unbiased, helping to establish best practices for policing)
Bill Clinton's task force on healthcare (that one was particularly controversial and unprecedented, because he appointed his own wife to lead it, and it involved a bunch of closed-door meetings and her getting elevated access to certain information not normally available outside of an official government role)
George HW Bush established a "War on Drugs" taskforce, that ended up being comprised of people with no background in law enforcement or drug policy. (But that had, let's say, "predictable" recommendations). -- it'd would've been sort of like appointing a well-known vegan activist to be on a task force to review factory farming, you'd know the answers you're going to get ahead of time
Reagan's Task force on food assistance was another controversial one. He appointed Ralph Hunt and a bunch of people from a conservative think tank to run it, and surprise surprise, they came up with the conclusion "We don't need to provide more food assistance, we need to provide less, and that'll motivate people to work harder".
What you're making an argument against, in essence, is the concept of a President appointing an unelected non-government individual to take on tasks that influence policy and enforcement. It's not an unreasonable concern to have.
