No. Financial involvement does not create status; an eligible E spouse’s authority follows their own maintained dependent status.
Keep ownership and work permission separate
Money and status are separate subjects. Signing a guarantee, contributing savings, or appearing on a loan document tells you something about the family's finances and possibly about who owns the enterprise; it tells you nothing about anyone's permission to work in the United States. A qualifying E spouse is employment-authorized incident to their own maintained dependent status, and that authorisation belongs to the spouse rather than to the investor's balance sheet.
Dependent children may attend school, but child status carries no work authorisation and it ends at twenty-one, which is worth marking in the plan when a business is expected to be held for several years. There is a second reason to be careful with family financial involvement. Because the category asks whether treaty-country nationals own at least half the enterprise, and whether the investor genuinely develops and directs it, shares or voting rights placed in a relative's name can move the answer to a question nobody meant to open.
Record each family member's own nationality, status, and intended activity in or around the business, and keep that record apart from the household's account of who paid for what. None of it changes the principal's own case, which still needs capital lawfully sourced, irrevocably committed and at risk, substantial in proportion to the cost of acquiring or creating the enterprise, in a real operating business that is more than marginal — and E-2 remains a temporary status carrying an intent to depart, with no direct path to permanent residence for the investor or for anyone dependent on him.