Well I think the catch is that, to use the US as an example, "big science" projects such as the NIF, particle accelerators, synchrotron light sources, and supe

Well I think the catch is that, to use the US as an example, "big science" projects such as the NIF, particle accelerators, synchrotron light sources, and supercomputers are generally all funded by the DOE, while small individual research labs are generally funded by NSF or (if biomedical) NIH. Critically, the only reason that DOE can support the cost of these "big science" projects is that they are generally "dual use" so to speak, with both basic science and national security applications. A similar dynamic is arguably at play in the funding of the largest projects in other countries as well. So it is not clear that cutting such "big science" projects would in practice actually open up more funding for small basic science grants, lacking the same national security applications.