RN
The rumour has a shape, and the shape is what gives it away: it never has a source.
Every version of "is she coming back" traces to an inference about her personal circumstances rather than to a statement, a contract, a producer, or a scheduled release. That is not a story about a performer's plans. It is a story about what a certain kind of coverage assumes will happen to a woman when something in her life changes, and the assumption is doing all of the work.
Worth stating plainly, then: as of this writing there has never been an announcement, and her public position across a decade has been consistent and unambiguous in the other direction.
What is genuinely on the record
Khalifa performed for a very short period in the mid-2010s and has spoken about it repeatedly since. The account she gives is that the work lasted about three months, that she was paid roughly twelve thousand dollars in total, and that no further money reached her afterwards while the videos continued to circulate.
The studio disagrees, publicly and in detail. BangBros sent her a cease-and-desist and put up a page rebutting her version, asserting a working period of well over two years, a studio figure many times higher than the one she gives, separate webcam earnings, and earlier scenes shot under a different stage name.
Both are interested parties. Neither account has been independently verified, no court has resolved it, and this article is not going to pick a winner. What can be said is that the disagreement is not a small one — the two versions differ on duration, on totals, and on when the work stopped — and that anyone repeating either figure as settled fact is repeating a claim.
The dispute matters more than the numbers in it, because it is a working demonstration of how little a performer can prove about their own contract after the fact.
The thing that makes "comeback" the wrong word
Here is what makes the entire question a category error.
From a viewer's position, she never left. The scenes are still available, still indexed, still generating traffic, still monetised — by other people, indefinitely. Whatever she decides about her future has no effect on that catalogue, and no decision available to her would remove it.
So the "will she return" framing quietly imagines a career that can be switched off and on. That is not how any of this works. The output of three months in 2014 has outlived the career, the marriage, two changes of profession and every news cycle since, and it will still be there when the next rumour goes round.
Her public position has been shaped by exactly this. She has advised people considering the work not to sign with a company, and to publish independently if they publish at all. Whatever you make of that advice, it is a position derived from a specific and documented experience, not a slogan.
The distinction she keeps making, which the rumour keeps ignoring
She has not withdrawn from adult-adjacent work. She publishes on a subscription platform, and she has been explicit that she considers this a different thing — because she decides what is made, what is posted, what comes down, and who is paid.
Once you hold that distinction, the comeback rumour collapses. There is no gap in her working life for a return to fill. The question people keep asking is whether she will resume a specific commercial arrangement she has described as the worst decision she made — an arrangement whose defining feature, on her account, is that it kept nothing for her once it was signed.
The answer she has given, more than once, is no. Producers have approached her publicly. That is a fact about producers.
Why this keeps getting written anyway
Recurring speculation about one performer's return is a durable traffic product. It costs nothing to produce, requires no source, cannot be falsified quickly, and reliably rebuilds interest in a back catalogue that other people own. Every cycle sends attention to the same videos.
That is the uncomfortable part for anyone in the business of writing about this industry, this article included. The rumour is not a neutral curiosity. It is a marketing mechanism with a real person's name attached, and the person it concerns has spent years asking for the opposite.
If you want to know what she is actually doing, she publishes it herself, and the subscription listings are where that kind of work is catalogued. If you want to know whether she is going back to a studio, she has answered that in her own words often enough that anyone still asking is not really asking.