US didn't start to loan Entente money because Entente had much assets to offer in exchange for the goods from across the Atlantic. The assets Entente powers had in US were not limitless, nor could they be easily converted to compensate for goods and cash sent across the ocean, otherwise the entire scheme with ballooning debt would never be enacted in the first place. Seizing defaulting Entente's assets would be a consolation prize at best.
So your idea of US-Entente relations being bad is the fact that US didn't do something about Entente's armed merchantmen being sunk by Germans? In a war in which US was not even an active participant? Was Wilson supposed to fly to France and shield Entente's soldiers from German bullets as well?
Americans were loaning huge amounts of money and shipping loads of goods to Entente, not Germany. This is a real indication of US-Entente's relations compared to US-German relations.
That disparity just reflected the fact that the Entente had assets in America which could be used as security for loans, while Germany did not.
No unsecured loans were made prior to US entry into the war, and hesitantly even then. Indeed, as late as November 1916 the Federal Reserve, with Wilson's approval, made an announcement discouraging such loans.
As to US-Entente relations, in September 1916 Congress had empowered the President to deny clearance from US ports to the ships of any nations which discriminated against American firms. This was to clear the way, if necessary, for retaliation against
Britain for its blacklisting of companies which attempted to trade with the CP. Congress was not at all pro-Entente at this time, and if the loans so far made had committed America to the Entente, no one had bothered to tell either them or the President that such was the case. The eventual DoW was brought about by submarine attacks on US shipping, aggravated by the Zimmermann Note. There is no evidence whatever that the loans, as they stood in April 1917, had anything at all to do with it.