Introduction: Ethical mentorship is commonly portrayed as a mechanism for guidance, care, and professional development. However, within hierarchical settings, ethical language may also be strategically deployed by Machiavellian leaders to mask self-serving motives. This study examines the paradox of ethical mentorship when care-based rhetoric is used to legitimize control, obligation, and dependency. Building on Alowais and Suliman (2025), the study extends existing work on dark leadership traits by focusing specifically on mentorship dynamics within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), contexts known for bureaucratic complexity and symbolic moral discourse. Methods: A qualitative research design was adopted using semi-structured interviews with employees working in HEIs. This approach enabled an in-depth exploration of lived experiences, emotional ambivalence, and relational power dynamics that are not readily captured through quantitative methods. Data were analysed thematically to identify recurring patterns related to ethical rhetoric, manipulation, and trust. Results: The findings revealed three interrelated themes. First, Machiavellian mentors strategically employed professional and ethical language to enhance legitimacy, making manipulative practices difficult to detect. Second, mentees experienced persistent emotional ambivalence, characterized by simultaneous feelings of gratitude and exploitation driven by norms of moral duty and reciprocity. Third, once manipulation became apparent, fractures in trust emerged and spread across teams, undermining morale and organizational culture. Discussion: The study contributes to leadership and ethics scholarship by demonstrating how mentorship can be weaponized under the guise of care, transforming ethical guidance into a subtle mechanism of control. The findings underscore the importance of distinguishing genuine support from performative ethics within mentoring relationships. Practically, the study highlights the need for institutional vigilance, targeted training, transparent feedback mechanisms, and safeguards that protect mentees from coercive dependency. Without such measures, ethical mentorship risks becoming an instrument of domination rather than development.